Plastic was used extensively in smartphone design just a few years ago but has since been usurped by glass on many modern devices. Now that phones regularly cross the $1,000 barrier, most buyers have grown used to expecting the premium feel of glass on these expensive devices. Now, this isnâ€™t quite the case with the Samsung Galaxy Note 20.
While the Galaxy Note 20 Ultra does use an extensive amount of glass in its design, the $1,000 Galaxy Note 20 uses glasstic, a supposedly glass-like plastic that Samsung is hoping offers a better look and feel than traditional plastic.
In a recent piece tackling glasstic, we asked readers if the decision to use plastic instead of glass on a premium smartphone is an issue. Hereâ€™s what you told us.
Do you think $1,000 phones should be made out of plastic?
This was a heated one which garnered just under 2,100 votes, but thereâ€™s a clear majority here.
More than 1,200 respondentsâ€”just over 60%â€”voted that plastic â€œshould never be on flagship smartphones,â€� echoing comments we received on our glasstic opinion piece too.
Most users donâ€™t believe plastic has a place on a phone that tops a companyâ€™s premium model range, especially considering Samsung flagships since 2015 have used a metal and glass construction. Thereâ€™s also an argument for price versus value, and the Galaxy Note 20 seems to fall short of offering users a decent balance between the two.
There are some readers who donâ€™t mind plastic at all. Just over a quarter of respondents didnâ€™t see the use of plastic as an issue, but did suggest the â€œlook and feel of the plasticâ€� is important. From afar, the Galaxy Note 20â€™s back can easily be mistaken for frosted glass. Thereâ€™s also a case from Samsung for using glasstic instead of glass. The former hides unsightly smudges, according to the company, and adds to a deviceâ€™s durability when dropped.
Finally, there doesnâ€™t seem to be a market large enough to warrant plastic flagships, at least not with a four-figure price tag. Just 14.2% of respondents would be â€œfine with a plastic flagship.â€�
Interestingly, readers have issues beyond the use of plastic on phones. The Galaxy Note 20â€™s main problem doesnâ€™t seem to be its construction, but rather its sub-flagship specifications at a flagship price. Comments were pretty scathing in this regard, and you can read them below.
Hereâ€™s what you had to say
- Drone9: To the rich that keep buying their products and telling Samsung they love it, anything is reasonable. No phone is worth more than $600 period.
- Goran: Plastic back on Note 20 isnâ€™t the issue. Price and specifications are. Note 20 is made to point you to buy Ultra. And to make Ultra â€œreasonablyâ€� priced. Samsungs illusion. Exynos in Europe and other markets is a disastrous choice.
- MatteBlack: If it was leather, vegan leather, or some other â€œpremiumâ€� materialâ€”but that isnâ€™t even the main problem. They cut waaaaay too many corners with the regular note. I would say itâ€™s a $700 phone, max.
- Marl/o: Plastic is not the problem: specs/price is.
- ArchonJK: Honestly, Iâ€™m fine with a flagship having plastic for durability reasons (as long as itâ€™s built properly and wonâ€™t snap in half). But the 1080p 60hz screen on the Note 20, a $1000 phone, is simply unacceptable. And itâ€™s not like Samsung took the money saved on glass onto improving the screen, they are just pocketing the money.
- Nostromo: Preference is subjective of course but when I think back on my phones of the past twenty years itâ€™s the rubberized back of the early Motorola Droids, the Kevlar-backed Droid RAZRs and the textured back of the LG V10 that I remember as most pleasing. Not everyone is going to have the same memories as have I but thatâ€™s to be expected.
Thatâ€™s it for our plastic poll. Thanks for the votes and comments on this one. If you have further thoughts on the results, be sure to drop them down below!