I haven’t used a phone case in years—here’s why Samsung forced me to change my ways


Maybe it’s because I come from the pre-smartphone era, but I hate phone cases. Smartphones are beautiful devices (at least the ones I buy are) that feel great in the hand and are lovely to look at, so why slap an ugly case on it? So it will sell for more when I’m done? So someone else can get the enjoyment I denied myself?

Opinions on the merits of cases aside, the fact is that most of my smartphone history has been case-less. I had a dalliance with leather cases just in time for them to fall completely out of favor, but apart from that, my first instinct was to avoid them.I recently got a good deal on a Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra as my carrier got rid of this outgoing model, and I did not want to put a case on it. However, thanks to a boneheaded decision by Samsung, that’s exactly what I ended up doing.

Switching to Samsung broke my “caseless + MagSafe” setup

Bye-bye clean setup

I guess I also have to put some of the blame on Apple here, too. I took a break from Android for about four years, during which I became used to the convenience of MagSafe. I use a MagSafe charging stand on my desk, which turns my phone into a desk clock plus whatever other useful widgets I can squeeze onto the always-on display.

There’s also a wealth of cool accessories, such as wallet attachments and power bank backpacks, that I’ve used on occasion and would like to keep using if at all possible.

The problem is that Samsung chose not to put any actual alignment magnets in the phone! So sure if I hold my S25 Ultra to the charging pad, it will charge, but if you let go, it just falls down.

It’s too bad, because to me, having a magnetic attachment point on my phone with no case is the perfect minimalist solution.

What’s most ironic to me is that, in an interview with the Verge, the Samsung R&D chief explained that part of the rationale for leaving magnets out of the latest S26 Ultra was that most people use cases, in which case the internal magnets do nothing. But, in my situation, I wouldn’t be using a case if there were magnets in my phone! Thanks, Samsung.

s26 ultra product image

SoC

Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5

Display

6.9-inch Dynamic Super AMOLED 2X

RAM

12 or 16 GB

Storage

256GB, 512GB, or 1TB

Battery

5,000 mAh

Operating System

Android

Get the new Galaxy S26 Ultra with AI smarts and an all-new privacy display. It’s big, powerful, packed with AI, and you’ll love the S-Pen stylus. 


The awkward reality of magnetic accessories on Android

It’s a mess

I had a look around online to see which Android phones do have built-in magnets, and for now it seems the answer is “none.” The Qi2 standard does make provision for magnetic charging, and it’s not like there’s some sort of patent conflict with Apple’s MagSafe, so I have to assume that other phone manufacturers are also making the decision based on the same logic.

I also don’t know what sorts of costs or trade-offs there are to putting this feature in a phone. Who knows? Maybe Apple had to make some major sacrifices with its iPhones to get magnets in them. What would actually be lost in an S26 Ultra in exchange for built-in magnets? In that aforementioned Verge interview, one answer is that magnets would mean added thickness.

If that’s the case, just how thin would the iPhone Air have been without MagSafe? Maybe Apple had no choice but to put in those thickening magnets or the Air would have to be reclassified as a knife, which would mean you couldn’t take it on a plane.

Again, if my phone had magnets in it, I would not need the case, and then the bit of extra thickness would be irrelevant, but apparently, the number of case-less users is such a minority that I wonder why they don’t just rubberize the phone in the factory and save everyone some time.

Now, before you say it, I am fully aware that I could also just buy a magnet ring sticker for my phone instead of a whole case, and honestly, I might end up doing that, but right now I don’t want to for a few good reasons.

First, I hate the idea of stickers. I have never stuck one on my car, my laptop, my phones, or my tablets. If you like attaching stuff with adhesive to your devices, then more power to you, but all my Apple stickers are still in the boxes they came in, so that tells you how I feel.

Second, I need my phone to have a flat back. This might be a total personal peeve, but if I had a bump or raised surfaces I could feel on the back of my phone, it would be like a tooth cavity you can’t leave alone. It would drive me nuts!

Third, I just don’t trust the adhesive to keep my phone safely secured. Call me paranoid, but I don’t want my expensive phone held up by a thin circle of glue. I guess I’ll have to check in again a few years from now to see if Android phone makers have changed their minds.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


As I’m writing this, NVIDIA is the largest company in the world, with a market cap exceeding $4 trillion. Team Green is now the leader among the Magnificent Seven of the tech world, having surpassed them all in just a few short years.

The company has managed to reach these incredible heights with smart planning and by making the right moves for decades, the latest being the decision to sell shovels during the AI gold rush. Considering the current hardware landscape, there’s simply no reason for NVIDIA to rush a new gaming GPU generation for at least a few years. Here’s why.

Scarcity has become the new normal

Not even Nvidia is powerful enough to overcome market constraints

Global memory shortages have been a reality since late 2025, and they aren’t just affecting RAM and storage manufacturers. Rather, this impacts every company making any product that contains memory or storage—including graphics cards.

Since NVIDIA sells GPU and memory bundles to its partners, which they then solder onto PCBs and add cooling to create full-blown graphics cards, this means that NVIDIA doesn’t just have to battle other tech giants to secure a chunk of TSMC’s limited production capacity to produce its GPU chips. It also has to procure massive amounts of GPU memory, which has never been harder or more expensive to obtain.

While a company as large as NVIDIA certainly has long-term contracts that guarantee stable memory prices, those contracts aren’t going to last forever. The company has likely had to sign new ones, considering the GPU price surge that began at the beginning of 2026, with gaming graphics cards still being overpriced.

With GPU memory costing more than ever, NVIDIA has little reason to rush a new gaming GPU generation, because its gaming earnings are just a drop in the bucket compared to its total earnings.

NVIDIA is an AI company now

Gaming GPUs are taking a back seat

A graph showing NVIDIA revenue breakdown in the last few years. Credit: appeconomyinsights.com

NVIDIA’s gaming division had been its golden goose for decades, but come 2022, the company’s data center and AI division’s revenue started to balloon dramatically. By the beginning of fiscal year 2023, data center and AI revenue had surpassed that of the gaming division.

In fiscal year 2026 (which began on July 1, 2025, and ends on June 30, 2026), NVIDIA’s gaming revenue has contributed less than 8% of the company’s total earnings so far. On the other hand, the data center division has made almost 90% of NVIDIA’s total revenue in fiscal year 2026. What I’m trying to say is that NVIDIA is no longer a gaming company—it’s all about AI now.

Considering that we’re in the middle of the biggest memory shortage in history, and that its AI GPUs rake in almost ten times the revenue of gaming GPUs, there’s little reason for NVIDIA to funnel exorbitantly priced memory toward gaming GPUs. It’s much more profitable to put every memory chip they can get their hands on into AI GPU racks and continue receiving mountains of cash by selling them to AI behemoths.

The RTX 50 Super GPUs might never get released

A sign of times to come

NVIDIA’s RTX 50 Super series was supposed to increase memory capacity of its most popular gaming GPUs. The 16GB RTX 5080 was to be superseded by a 24GB RTX 5080 Super; the same fate would await the 16GB RTX 5070 Ti, while the 18GB RTX 5070 Super was to replace its 12GB non-Super sibling. But according to recent reports, NVIDIA has put it on ice.

The RTX 50 Super launch had been slated for this year’s CES in January, but after missing the show, it now looks like NVIDIA has delayed the lineup indefinitely. According to a recent report, NVIDIA doesn’t plan to launch a single new gaming GPU in 2026. Worse still, the RTX 60 series, which had been expected to debut sometime in 2027, has also been delayed.

A report by The Information (via Tom’s Hardware) states that NVIDIA had finalized the design and specs of its RTX 50 Super refresh, but the RAM-pocalypse threw a wrench into the works, forcing the company to “deprioritize RTX 50 Super production.” In other words, it’s exactly what I said a few paragraphs ago: selling enterprise GPU racks to AI companies is far more lucrative than selling comparatively cheaper GPUs to gamers, especially now that memory prices have been skyrocketing.

Before putting the RTX 50 series on ice, NVIDIA had already slashed its gaming GPU supply by about a fifth and started prioritizing models with less VRAM, like the 8GB versions of the RTX 5060 and RTX 5060 Ti, so this news isn’t that surprising.

So when can we expect RTX 60 GPUs?

Late 2028-ish?

A GPU with a pile of money around it. Credit: Lucas Gouveia / How-To Geek

The good news is that the RTX 60 series is definitely in the pipeline, and we will see it sooner or later. The bad news is that its release date is up in the air, and it’s best not to even think about pricing. The word on the street around CES 2026 was that NVIDIA would release the RTX 60 series in mid-2027, give or take a few months. But as of this writing, it’s increasingly likely we won’t see RTX 60 GPUs until 2028.

If you’ve been following the discussion around memory shortages, this won’t be surprising. In late 2025, the prognosis was that we wouldn’t see the end of the RAM-pocalypse until 2027, maybe 2028. But a recent statement by SK Hynix chairman (the company is one of the world’s three largest memory manufacturers) warns that the global memory shortage may last well into 2030.

If that turns out to be true, and if the global AI data center boom doesn’t slow down in the next few years, I wouldn’t be surprised if NVIDIA delays the RTX 60 GPUs as long as possible. There’s a good chance we won’t see them until the second half of 2028, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they miss that window as well if memory supply doesn’t recover by then. Data center GPUs are simply too profitable for NVIDIA to reserve a meaningful portion of memory for gaming graphics cards as long as shortages persist.


At least current-gen gaming GPUs are still a great option for any PC gamer

If there is a silver lining here, it is that current-gen gaming GPUs (NVIDIA RTX 50 and AMD Radeon RX 90) are still more than powerful enough for any current AAA title. Considering that Sony is reportedly delaying the PlayStation 6 and that global PC shipments are projected to see a sharp, double-digit decline in 2026, game developers have little incentive to push requirements beyond what current hardware can handle.

DLSS 5, on the other hand, may be the future of gaming, but no one likes it, and it will take a few years (and likely the arrival of the RTX 60 lineup) for it to mature and become usable on anything that’s not a heckin’ RTX 5090.

If you’re open to buying used GPUs, even last-gen gaming graphics cards offer tons of performance and are able to rein in any AAA game you throw at them. While we likely won’t get a new gaming GPU from NVIDIA for at least a few years, at least the ones we’ve got are great today and will continue to chew through any game for the foreseeable future.



Source link