0.16mm is roughly the diameter of a strand of human hair. (0.1 to 0.18mm.) In a consumer product, that's basically imperceptible -- and, in all but the most precision-engineered products, it would be within standard manufacturing tolerances.

So I suppose there already is a phone with an analogous form factor.

A proper bend test from jerryrigeverything:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yQHFCpO6gHE

>but I literally had store security walk up to me and ask me not to do that.

Are you suggesting they did this because they expected it to bend because it was thin? If so, I doubt it. Regardless of thickness, I suspect security would ask someone not to physically damage their devices.

What would you have done if it did bend? It's not meant to be unbendable, which would have made you liable for the damages that happened next.

Absolutely, and yes on the Macbook Air! Although the Honor phone mentioned elsewhere calls itself "thinnest at 8.8mm", +/- camera mesa, etc... So at best 8.8mm folded in pocket for a complete phone. Much thicker that an iPhone Air complete phone (and more screen space).

But mostly one thing that's difficult for us to evaluate is whether this is "at scale and profitably". On the competitors' side anyway. The Honor seems to be a $2000 phone (higher even than Google's foldable!) - probably before tariffs, not clear. How many will sell? What margin will Honor make on this? Hard to tell although it would be possible to dig the historical numbers.

There are certainly people buying iPhones essentially for fashion/status-symbol reasons: i.e., because they look visually different from other phones, whether that is because of thinness or anything else. Why else would so many Android devices have copied the FaceID notch so soon after it was released?

Its unlikely anyone is buying a phone because of how thin it is (within reason), but it is quite likely that they are more likely to learn about a new phone available to buy if it is "impossibly" thin. Advertising is important — even for recognized names like Apple.

>Is anyone buying an iPhone because it's slightly thinner than other phones?

Yes. I have at least two co-workers that have stated (we will see if they follow through) that they are going to move from their current phones (13 Pro and 15 Pro) to the Air because of the thinness.

I will buy one of these because I want a phone that doesn't create such a huge bulge in my pants pocket

People who buy iPhones don't need a reason to buy iPhones other than just for the sake of buying iPhones. That's the key to Apple's trillions. Apple would have made this phone 2.75cm thick and there would have longer lines and same people singing paeans of thick phones and how it is going to change the world and solve global warming and eventually bring everlasting peace.

> or any phone for that matter.

I'm strapping phone to my arms during runs; for me, shaving off those extra grams count. Bought an Infinix specifically for this reason. I didn't specifically look for the thinnest but it came the the most lightweight.

I don’t think so. But it gives buyers who were already inclined to buy an iPhone another form factor option. Nothing wrong with choice.

My sample size is small but the usual reason I hear from non-technical individuals is that they want the best camera possible.

Trend is towards screen real estate now, with folding phones

> What’s the evidence for which way causality works?

One qualifier would be "at scale and profitably."

But for more detail, yes, the situation has changed over time and probably the reasoning has changed over time.

McGee spends a lot of time on the difficulty for Apple R&D to keep up with Apple design bureau's demands. To the point that Apple execs arrive at decisions that for the sake of internal peace and meeting deadlines, Apple Industrial Design is not to make arbitrary demands (like they used to) and must consider manufacturing realities. Which still leaves Manufacturing struggling at every step to keep up. So - usually - manufacturing is very much pushed to the edge of what's possible by Design. Even though Apple teach China phone manufacturing (again "at scale and profitably"). Design are the ones pushing. Whether Design is really concerned with keeping ahead of competitors... is not explicitely told by Apple people. They do seem to love "impossible". In my recollection, it's more McGee's observations and conclusion.

Apple mainland China companies competition has also been a widely varying quantity. In part due to Chinese fashion trends and in part due to Apple political difficulties in China (which come and go). Underlying should be "at scale and profitably": Apple rightly shouldn't care if a few exotic phones come out. That wouldn't matter to their bottom line. They are described as caring when there is a flood of matching phones coming out - and even then with some latency.

Overall btw, "Apple in China" is fantastic. With massive amounts of local color and "story viewed from the Apple China people's side". Lots of bits that were missed if you mostly followed Apple from the side of what we see in the US.

it's a feature! /s