Doesn't sound like a very good alternative. You're paying 10% of the cost of the phone to protect it against (some) accidents, but in the process set it back a generation, by making it thicker and heavier. That's pretty costly as far as insurance goes.

Only if you place a high priority on thickness. I personally don't, and am actually fairly annoyed that cell phone makers don't have the option to e.g. double the thickness of their phones in exchange for a 2-3x increase in battery life.

They have this, it is called a Mophie Juice Pack[1]. They have two sizes with different battery extensions.

I miss the thinness of my phone without the case but greatly prefer being able to get through a day in the data center or traveling without constantly charging my phone.

1: http://www.mophie.com/mophie-juice-pack-air-iPhone-4-4s-batt...

You can get keychain fob chargers to charge your phone in your pocket when you need it and keep the thinness the rest of the time.

>>Only if you place a high priority on thickness.

Most people do. This is why smartphones have been getting thinner with each iteration.

Of course. My point is only that people don't all have the same priorities. If you strongly value thickness, a case is not a good choice. If you don't care, then a case is a good choice. Making a blanket declaration that a case is "pretty costly as far as insurance goes" regardless of personal preferences is stupid.

The thickness of a case doesn't bother me. The ridge around the edge of the screen does.