You don't actually want a thin phone

Companies advertise the thinness of their phones as if it were a feature, and people uncritically accept this; but I actually earnestly believe such thinness is an anti-feature that actively makes the phone a worse product.
This is not to say that I think phones should be bricks, mind; but there is definitely a sweet-spot, and going too thin makes phones harder to hold, easier to damage, and shorter-lived in battery life. Even a modest 0.5mm–1.0mm increase in thickness dramatically improves battery life and aging.

So what is the ideal thickness, then? Well, I think it probably depends in part on an individual's hand size and on the curvature of the phone's back. But in general, I'd argue that any phone thinner than its camera bump is unnecessarily hurting itself in battery capacity and holdability. And a phone should not be so thin as to yield a battery that cannot withstand a full day of typical use after 5 years of aging.

Regarding camera bumps: In addition to making phones not sit comfortably on surfaces (tipsy-tipsy), they also project the cameras (delicate, breakable glass) outward, thus increasing the odds that they will scratch or break. As a result, everyone buys a case that thickens their phone enough to recess the area of the bump, oftentimes with a little door that covers the lenses when not in-use. If virtually everyone thickens their phone to make it useable in the real world, then that phone's elsewise thinness was never a true aspect of the product: It was just showroom deception. Design that must be modded to be used is objectively bad design, and products with such design are defective right from the factory.

Worth noting: You can go surprisingly thick before it becomes a problem. My current phone, the Unihertz Jelly Max, takes this to what many might consider an extreme: it's at least as thick as my Trēos were in 2008, and its battery (per my testing) lasts a full week when its radios are disabled and it is left to idle. I love holding it: it cradles naturally in the hand, it feels ergonomic, I'm not struggling to hold onto a thin, slippery slab. So it is a better product because it is not thin.
When people see how thick it is, many times their initial thought is that it would be uncomfortable in a pocket; but no, it works very well in a pocket, but only because it is not a phablet — it is a normal-sized phone that just wants to be a phone. And so its Z-axis projection is not a show-stopper because it is not extended over a huge X/Y plane. (This begets a different inquiry surrounding whether phones have gotten too tall/wide (The answer is objectively "yes".), though that's a whole other discussion.)
But, again: you do not need a phone this thick to reap the benefits of not being too thin: You just need enough thickness to give you comfortable margin on battery life and to encompass the cameras.

Summarily: The race toward ever thinner and thinner phones is not being driven by consumers (who happily thicken their phones with chonky cases to match camera bumps); instead, it is being driven by marketing teams and business analysts who somehow have never once stopped to think about whether the trait they're pushing actually makes for a better product.
I suspect this competition on thinness is a vestige of the mid-2000s, when most phones were quite chonky (maybe too chonky at times) and thinness was both an improvement and a novelty; but we haven't lived in that landscape for 20 years! So I think it's high-past time to realign our goals with what actually makes sense: to make phones actually ergonomic, not arbitrarily thin; to design them for human hands rather than per post hoc ergo propter hoc KPIs.