Battery life if obviously a trade-off against what you want to do. If you want to do those things, it's not reasonable to expect that battery life will not be reduced.
(To take the argument ad absurdum, I could suggest that it's stupid to have a mobile phone at all when a landline never needs charging, but almost everyone acknowledges that having the extra mobility in exchange for the necessity of charging batteries is a worthwhile trade-off.)
If you literally never need any of those facilities, then of course a smartphone is a bad choice; that shouldn't even need saying.
If you *might occasionally* need them but don't use them in the normal course of events, the battery life is likely to be on the same order as a dumbphone. It will be less, to be sure, but not ten times less - you might be looking at around a week versus two weeks. The reason a smartphone's battery life is typically less in practice is that it turns out people want and use those features.
This isn't theoretical BTW; on some very rare occasions I've left my phone largely unused for a week or more and not had the battery run out, and it's an HTC Desire which is now pretty long in the tooth and wasn't particularly known for its stellar battery life even new.
(Random addendum: the real battery-killer is of course travelling, as the phone desperately tries to find a connection presumably by boosting its output power, then has to do it all over again 30 seconds later. Back when I had a non-smart mobile phone, it would have a battery life of around two weeks, or three hours on a train, which is a bit of a bugger really. Things don't seem to have improved much in that department.)
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds