Comments by "XSportSeeker" (@XSpImmaLion) on "Marques Brownlee"
channel.
-
Neat! xD
My personal theories goes like this.
1. all of those phones have "good enough" cameras. Perhaps even the Royole Flexpai. xD But they probably differ on edge cases.... P30s crazy zoom, one of those smartphones had a macro mode I think, how many focal ranges the multiple cameras cover, what software processing they use for low light shots, stuff like that.
2. when results are getting this close, people switch to deciding the better photos more on subjective stuff.
3. MKHB guess around brighter, more colorful photos is correct, specially for social networks. It's not only because on average people pay more attention to those, it's because those are the factors that will make the most difference given a wide range of screens, brightness, and general color accuracy. Like, if you are using a crappy tiny low res phone screen to compare those photos, potentially the only difference you will actually be able to see is brightness and color saturation - it's like, you really can't see more than that if your screen is crappy. Most other factors will vary depending on how good the screen you are looking at is.
4. One likely reason why people chose the photo where everything was in focus is because the center of attention in the photo was divided between the model car, and the color chart. Because the colors in the chart are so vibrant, people might feel like it should be in focus... specially people who don't know what the color chart is for. xD
5. I also think there is a threshold that is dependent on background and subject of the photo that establishes the amount of blur needed in the background of photo for it to look better. For instance, if you have a rather plain background for a portrait, a little bit of blur should be enough. But if you have an extremely busy distracting background with lots of vibrant colors, then it needs to be heavily blurred out more towards a bokeh effect for the portrait to look better. The objective of the blur is to create depth separation and lead attention to the subject of the photo. If it fails to do that, perhaps sometimes blur is not perceived as a positive point.
6. cloudy days, despite all progress cameras have done over the years, are still bad to make camera comparisons. That's because lighting conditions can go from one extreme to another with just a single cloud passing under the sun. It's a good way to see if a single camera is adjusting white balance and color well with a changing environment though.
In any case, I don't think I have much to complain about the results, as long as people understand that this is only a single test made for funsies... it's not a lab test, and you shouldn't take overarching conclusions from this. I think the best thing people can take from it is that smartphone cameras these days are good enough. The cameras won't do any magic for you, the most important thing is just your own photography skills.
But if I personally was to chose a smartphone with camera in mind... I'd perhaps think more about the options it gives me, and this is an entire personal choice. I just like the idea of having a camera that can take photos down to macro, all the way up to 20x zoom. :P Even if it isn't the absolute best in resolution, I like the flexibility.
The other factor would be dynamic range. For the type of family photos and casual photos I use my smartphone for, if a camera can take pretty good photos in harsh conditions like low light or scenarios with too much light in one spot, and dark shadows in another, while still retaining some details... that'd be great. :D
In general though, I think these days you'll only get an extremely crappy unusable camera if you go to the very low end of smartphones. Mid range and up it's all good, for casual photography.
129
-
As someone whose first Android phone was a Sony Xperia Z3, I can give you my personal perspective as to why people won't buy Sony smartphones these days, including myself.
First of all, why I bought that phone at that time? I was coming from a Nokia 1020, you can already guess why.
It had a reasonable price for spec, a camera package that stuck above average on Android land, and an overall good looking functional design with stuff like IP68 rating that appealed to me at the time... I put that phone underwater and used it while running under rain without worries.
I guess good to mention too that it was an all glass phone back at a time when most Android phones were plastic, though this didn't matter to me a lot since I used it with a case.
So, why I went to OnePlus after it?
Sony lost a ton of faith, followers and goodwill with the next models.
They ramped up the price too much, and made phones that were a mish mash of useless high end features with outdated software and other specs.
4K back then was not only ridiculous, it was downright useless. It drained battery like nothing else, there was not a whole lot of content to make use of that 4K (imho there still isn't), and in practice, it wasn't something I'd like on a phone anyways. With that release, they also put an absurd price on it too, in a time before the artificial ramp up of flagships. People would laugh at it because they could spend less and get the latest Note or something instead.
Next models had all sorts of problems. Overheating cameras, Sony stuck to microUSB at least a year longer than the competition on their flagships, they put priorities where it wasn't necessary like slow motion on cameras, and ignored things that people liked - like low light mode. Even the entire concept of putting more manual controls on the camera came later than other brands, despite them - like said - making the camera sensors for everyone.
It felt to me like smartphones made to be a showcase of stuff Sony did, while ignoring everything else. They had outlandish unecessary tech on the camera hardware side, but didn't have a bunch of things that all other brands had already adopted.
The Z3 also wasn't perfect by any means, and the problems it had was a glimpse of the general problem with Sony doing smartphones. The IP68 rating was accomplished by using these flap covers on top of ports - SIM card, SD card and microUSB charging port - yes, a flap cover on top of the microUSB port, which you had to use for charging. It was a hassle. The ones from my phone ended up falling out eventually (which invalidated the IP68 rating), because everytime you yanked the thing got more and more lose, until it fell off.
It had a magnetic charging port that was a good idea, but awful execution. You could either get a proprietary cable or a docking station to make use of it, I had both, both were less convenient than opening up the damn flap and connecting a cable straight. Weak magnets, weird configuation, it never worked well. It was just badly designed.
And this is coming from someone who has been using magnetic charging cables for years now, done right.
Sony also didn't change, update, or improved their Android skin for ages. It was more or less like how Touchwiz prevented some people from buying Samsung phones, but with the difference that Touchwiz actually had a good ammount of fans. Sony's Xperia UI was just... weird. Between barebones not adding much to it, but also with a different jarring look that was stuck in the past. Seems like they changed that recently, I'm not sure because I just stopped looking at their phones after sometime.
There was also that time when Sony tried to bring the very side power button fingerprint sensor combo that MKHB is showing there, but for some reason around pattent dispute with... HP if I'm not mistaken, they ended up releasing a phone with NO fingerprint scanner when it was already a standard feature in the US. That one was a doozy... not sure how they solved that, probably by paying the necessary royalties.
On another hand, of course, the fact that Sony smartphones never seemed to get how smartphones are sold in western markets, or more likely, just not wanting to deal with the hassle - because it kinda works the same way there afaik.
They took very long to close deals with mobile operators, and when they did it didn't last long, and was kinda haphazard. Not sure how it is now, but for very long, a Sony phone just wasn't an option when you went directly to mobile operators. That's in the US... here in Brazil I never saw a Sony phone sold in any mobile operators. You have Samsung, LG, Motorola, even some brands I have never heard about like Semp Toshiba phones... but personally, never seen a single Sony phone sold on mobile operators here. Because Sony doesn't care, but probably also because Sony phones are too expensive for the market.
I suspect this has to do with other puzzling decisions other japanese companies often do - their main market always is the japanese market, and their decisions often go around what the japanese market understands and wants instead of the global or western market - take it or leave it. They have an extremely hard time understanding what other markets want, care for or need.
This explains the deficiencies on something like the Nintendo Switch... despite having hardware that basically comes from Android devices, it is so lacking in social and networking features it seems almost illogical. It also doesn't have, for some super weird reasons, absolute basic stuff like Bluetooth support for general headphones, gamepads and whatnot. Why?
I mean, it's good to hear Sony is catching up and putting out some features that at least some people might care about... but I'm not going back to it, mainly because price. Samsung, either because they understand the market, or because of a stroke of luck, made the perfect phone for me at this point in time... the S10e. It has all the necessary specs and features at a price I find reasonable. Chinese companies filled that whole a few years ago, but these days, given how trends are, I think it takes a corporation like Samsung that churns out a dozen models every half year of so to get to what I really want and need, because what I want and need is not exactly en vogue anymore.
But Sony? I think they remained in obscurity for too long for a comeback. It'll take years of putting out exceptionally good phones to make a dent in the market. And it's not enough to hit enthusiast markets, and other niche categories... if they really want the recognition and reach, plus percentage of the overall market, they'll have to do something closer to what Samsung does. Lots of models, targetting all markets, generating lots of buzz in the entire spectrum.
Also do way more in terms of marketing and reach. How did OnePlus got this big a market in such a short time? The tip for others trying lays there. It's a very real case study to go for.
96
-
The lesson, as always: Stop trusting celebrities for anything other than their main jobs.
Something that unfortunately gets violated too much.
For the most part with few exceptions, celebrities are not doctors, they are not nutricionists, they are not the FDA, most are not engineers, not scientists, and not even good reviewers, researchers or analysts of anything worth your money. I'm not trying to demean them, if you think logically about it, they just don't have the time to spend on stuff other than their careers.
There are exceptions, yes, but they are just that - exceptions. You know, some genius people like Natalie Portman.
Acting tips from your favorite actor or actress? Sure, that's their area of expertise. Instruments of choice or effects and production environment from favorite musicians and whatnot? Sure, that's what they work with everyday. The rest? Just say no.
I guess I could also say to just avoid Twitter entirely, but lots of people still find it useful... xD Hey, I'm not judging, I'm still on Facebook... sigh
Oh, as for the switcheroo, I bet it'll keep happening. You know why? Because for the most part, it's not celebrities that are making the posts... it'd a managing agency that probably has a fixed device to do everything, and they just don't wanna get a new phone, configure it all, and change their workflow everytime they get a sponsorship.
Though if it's a long time contract like Gal Godot's, I think they should've done it. And big brands obviously should do it, that's just sloppy. Probably same reason though... 3rd party marketing agencies taking care of the campaign instead of the brand itself. What with shots taken with a dSLRs instead of the smartphone camera itself...
41
-
I find it super interesting how the tune around this has shifted...
When the entire hype (and government funding I might add) started around 5G, it was all about the millimeter wave technology, how it was gonna transform connectivity in remote locations, how the entire thing was gonna drastically shift, how you could download and stream ultra high quality content at blazing speeds, etc etc.
Back then I started commenting in blogs and videos several times asking how the heck low altitude towers with a reach of less than a block and signals that could not penetrate a concrete wall would ever be able to replace 4G as is.
No answers. I never heard a single peep even from highly technical people saying how the heck this would happen in short time.
Suddenly out of nowhere, in the past couple of weeks the entire narrative around 5G, after getting beat down to a pulp finally on it's empty promises, shifted towards 600MHz networks, with AT&T now releasing this coverage map and all that. Which despite a whole ton of tech channels and blogs hammering on the propaganda, is NOT the 5G that was promised right there from start, but more like a 4.1G network that improves on regular 4G a bit, provided that the towers near you were upgraded.
And then, once again I need to remind americans that the problem with 4G there was never about the underlying technology, but how ISPs have artificially crippled your connectivity with barriers like datacaps and throttling, which is the reason why you never get "good speed" 4G. It's a mix of artificially limiting connectivity, refusing to upgrade and scale equipment properly as the number of users increased, and relying on the exact kinda hype that is being used to sell 5G to keep people coming without promised results.
I dunno why people should think that only because 4G now has become 4.1G (aka 600Mhz 5G) that the experience would be transformative in any way if the real bottleneck is on how carriers artificially limit the service.
But hey, if you guys wanna keep dancing around the same tune year after year, that's not really my problem. I just find it extremely curious how these things are happening. I see oligopolies making very good use of public ignorance to oversell stuff and then adjust their tune on the fly without any public outcry afterwards.
Search around how much taxpayer money the FCC already spent on 5G related projects. See if the proposed objectives around that funding are being sought out and achieved in any way. Think about why the narrative around the technology is changing now. You americans are smarter than this.
3
-
Seems like a funny interesting concept, and I am old enough. xD
Thought I can't really relate a whole lot.
The thing is, most of the old tech MKHB is showing there wasn't as ubiquitous where I live as they probably were in the US... most of them I've never seen in person.
The OG cellphone is a big example... I'm back from a time cellphones didn't exist, and I have never ever seen that huge chunk of cellphone in person, ever. A Motorola StarTAC or a Nokia brick would be more in tune for me.
JVC Camcorder was a little bit more common, but I have also never seen one. Camcorders became more common and ubiquitous for consumers here when the early models of Sony MiniDV camcorders came out.
Never seen anyone with that specific Polaroid model... the cheap chunky plastic one was the model lots of people had here, I still have it laying around somewhere.
OG Sony Walkman also wasn't a thing here... Walkman became mainstream when the plastic black models came out, or the yellow Sports models. I had a plastic kinda curvy kinda crappy model, and I almost convinced a cousin that got a tiny one from Japan to give it to me... xD I also had a crappy Aiwa for a time I think.
Finally, the OG Mac... well, early days Macs never became a thing here. No one had a Mac back then, most people never even heard about it. An IBM PC-XT or even a Tandy would be more relatable. xD
Sega Genesis or Master System, that I can relate. I personally owned neither (Nintendo guy here), but I played them a lot with friends and relatives who had them.
3
-
It's probably the best review website for smartphone cameras available on the Internet right now, but people are misusing a whoooole lot.
Thanks for the explainer Marques, you are right on the money.
You basically cannot have a single score that is completely representative of camera quality because not only there's a whole ton of variables and a whole ton of photography needs, you also end up with some pretty subjective stuff mixed in between.
For instance, some people might find a color profile that is completely uncalibrated over a perfect calibration. Ever wonder why people use filters so much? There's a miriad of factors that work just like that. Even a broke down score sheet with several different judging factors is leaving out a whole lot of stuff that matters.
And even outside all that, people should know that you can get some pretty awesome smartphone cameras in smartphone that will give you a pretty bad experience in everything else. This isn't happening so much these days since features have plateaued quite a bit, but I do remember hybrid smartphones of the past that tried to make plenty good cameras, but ended up with a smartphone that was really annoying to use and carry around.
Finally, let me add just one bit about YouTube reviews in general... people should know that what you see on YouTube regarding videos and photos from cameras might not be good enough for reviews. Simply put, YouTube compression has a major influence over it. Not saying it shouldn't be done, not saying they aren't helpful, but much like review websites caveats, it's something to know about so you don't completely rely on one source or another exclusively and end up with a bad device as result.
2
-
Nice that MKBHD is talking about this... I have noticed this exact point several years ago.
To pinpoint to a purchase, 3 years ago when I got my current phone, which was 2yrs old back then. But it's more like 5 years ago anyways because that's how long it took me to decide what to get. :P
None of the budget to mid-range new releases are worth their prices coming from big western brands I mean. This started happening when the price of flagships got artificially ramped up, or around the time when OnePlus phones started becoming expensive.
Good to note also, Motorola - despite it's name - is basically in the same category of the other more unrecognizable brands that MKBHD showed there - you are paying a premium for nothing.
Always good to remind people that Motorola has been a Chinese owned brand for almost 9 years now - Motorola Mobility got purchased by Lenovo, a Chinese company, back in 2014.
Anyways, back to the point, suppose you don't want to buy a used phone - it's still better to buy a new phone that was released a couple of years ago, if you can find that. These new budget and mid range phones, and some flagships too, are using all sorts of anti-consumer tactics including confusing SoC names, a lack of features that doesn't appear on spec sheets, corner cutting measures and whatnot to reach the prices they get to.
Also, the thing is that smartphones have plateau'd for a while now... it's just the fact that it has reached a point of maturity that what most people use a smartphone for, you don't really need more and more horsepower. If you are not playing the latest games on your phone... a flagship from 5+ years ago will serve you plenty well.
Has anyone noticed how the old assumption that a flagship phone will have all the latest specs have died in recent years? I distinctively remember this starting with Google Pixel phones. This compounded with ramp in prices just made me stop even considering a flagship phone purchase.
Camera and speakers also peaked I think, and since most brands are not using USB-C for much, having it is enough. Screen I'd personally be fine with 720p... my 52" TV is 1080p, don't need more than that. And the latest thing about it, the refresh rate, is yet another thing I don't care about. I can live with smartphone functions at 30Hz plenty well, doesn't even need to hit 60. Though lag like in this Motorola is a step too far.
Updates are important, and I also would like to have a phone that has Android as close to vanilla as possible, but gotta be honest, even this has diminishing returns at some point. Sure, having an updated device with years of guaranteed update gives you extra security, but it's not perfect security, and it's not as essential as some might say. After all, it's just a tiny fraction of the Android market that is living with a smartphone that has the latest updates anyways. It's not like everyone with a phone that is not updated anymore is having this extremely awful experience by comparison or something. Sometimes you get the latest update and it breaks something there for your troubles. I've been waiting a little while to do updates because of that these days.
And then there are the people who will always go for a Pixel Phone because it's a Google Phone and the closest thing you can get to vanilla Android yadda yadda.
I used to agree with stuff like that... back in Google Nexus and Android One times. Nowadays, not only most skins are pretty close to vanilla, but also getting rid of bloatware just became easier. Plus, I also have come to the conclusion these days that there isn't a whole ton of advantages on a security and privacy standpoint to stick to Google only... as Google really doesn't care about offering much more than the rest in those areas.
If my priority was only that, I'd likely be looking at a deGoogled phone with one of the privacy centric OSs.
On another point, in terms of extra features, it seems the Pixel is the most barebones of options. You get no desktop mode, fast charging is the more basic current one, not much variety in terms of video connectivity, and man, it seems new Pixel phones are always on the news for having all sorts of crippling bugs and defects.
I know lots of people like 'em Pixel phones, but to me personally, for the stuff I care about, it's been a complete disappointment. Both Nexus and Android One were far better projects for me personally.
Anyways, just rambling now... in general, my advice has been just not getting Motorola phones anymore. I dunno why MKBHD liked some of previous offerings, but to me the brand died when it sold out.
There is something to say on this matter about Oppo owned OnePlus too, specially after the brand reverted to using the parent Android version, but save it for another time.
2
-
Agreed. Well, I haven't been following this stuff much.
But to be clear, I have no problems with the tech itself. I don't believe it will become mainstream anytime soon, but if we're talking about some sort of indefinite future when we have gone through leaps and bounds of advances in several areas of tech enough to put a full VR/AR headset into regular glasses frames, or even contact lenses, without this causing a ton of problems with our senses, I can totally see how it'd make sense to either augment our regular eyesights with virtual objects or block the rest of the world entirely and create a totally virtual landscape to explore.
It's kinda what we already do for sound/music anyways. :P
There is just one distinction I always make for gaming in particular - the gaming we have today do not translate to VR/AR all that well. I don't think people get this often, but for instance, liking an FPS game where you are constantly running, shooting, turning around and doing all these fast motion stuff does not mean you'd automatically enjoy doing all that in VR or AR... because, and I think many people underestimate this, part of the fun is that you are doing all of this while actually being a couch potato. xD It's the opposite of cognitive dissonance.... you play the game exactly because you can do all the stuff there that you really can't irl.
But yes, the problem with Meta is Meta itself. The way this whole thing is being framed, what the real objectives are, what is truly at stake on letting a single company take over the entire concept, and the past entire history of Facebook itself.
So yep, VR and AR advancing towards a future everyone will want to use it, sure. Metaverse as it is, nope.
And this is coming from someone who didn't buy into the entire VR AR thing of recent years. It's too expensive, the experiences are too limited, I don't feel comfortable using any of the headsets I tried so far, nothing that I've tested or tried felt more than a novelty to me. Of course, this is my own experience, I'm not saying how others should feel about it. It's like, something I'd enjoy as a sport of sorts, as getting friends together and experimenting it, but not something I'd like to have at home, because it'd just end up gathering dust in some drawer. Space concerns considered, I wouldn't want it even if it was cheap, don't think so.
While I didn't immediately felt sick using VR for a few minutes at a time, I have a pretty big suspicion that using for hours would be tantamount to torture for me at this stage, if only for the fact that I already hate using headphones for too long. The one tech that allowed me to use headphones for extended periods of time was... bone conduction. I'm not sure I even know exactly why... obviously it has to do with listening to ambient sounds, but also because of comfort, because of sweaty and greasy ears, because of how hot you start feeling with those, stuff like that. I also don't like using hats, caps, and whatnot much...
But anyways, I found interesting the idea put up by anime like Dennou Coil... it's not exactly that, but more or less towards what I see AR being in mainstream usage in the future I guess. Minus the entire mysterious plot of the story, AR is in usage for everyday life stuff rather than being reserved for specific moments.
It's just that we are very very veeeeery far away from it still. More than people seem to realize. All these predictions of big tech, from autonomous cars to cloud everything to AI... they are far too overly optimistic. I think it's too many people living in rich high tech bubbles that they have become blind to the realities of the world they live in.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Non flagship that, and pay attention to this, I would not replace for a flagship even if it was the same price.
Ok, now that I got the attention, hear me out. I got my current phone this year, after keeping a OnePlus 3 for... I think it's over 3 years now. My "new" phone is a Samsung Galaxy S10e.
I did consider several others, including Pixel 3a, Xiaomi A2, Asus ROG phones and few others.
I don't say my first statement lightly, but it's due to very particular needs that I wanted to fullfill with a new phone.
First, it had to have a reasonable price, of course. Here in Brazil we not only have to pay huge importation taxes that can add up to a bit over the price of the phone itself, we also have to contend with currency exchange rates which are currently in an all time high. The S10e was relatively easy to find, at a reasonable price probably due to competition and sheer volume, in reputable stores that I knew would ship it right, and replace a broken unit if something happened.
Second, good camera, at least a bit better than the one on OnePlus 3... not too hard. The S10e has the main and wide camera of the S10. Zero complaints there.
Third, headphone jack. I have a couple of regular family visit trips during the year that can take anywhere from a few hours if I'm lucky to get cheap airplane tickets, up to 13 and 16 hours inside a bus. Bluetooth is fine, dongles are an ok alternative too, but I just like having the regular headphone jack to fall back to. S10e has it, S10 Lite didn't, decision point there. Oh, also, good speakers. S10e has stereo that uses the earpiece, S10 Lite only mono downfiring one.
Fourth, a fingerprint scanner solution that fits with a wallet style case. Not only a case, a wallet style case, which means no back mounted. So it's either under screen, or side mounted currently. The OnePlus 3 had a front mounted one, practically non existent these days because of the whole bezel less thing. S10e has a side mounted fingerprint scanner.
Fifth, good quality screen, 1080p and above. Not a big ask, but if possible OLED because I got used to it. S10e has an OLED panel... I think it's even 1440p, or some weird res between 1080p and 4k. Good bright panel too because Samsung. The S10 Lite has a bigger screen, but regular LED panel... not a huge problem for me, but the S10e also wins on this for me.
Sixth, Mid range to flagship level SoC, ram and internal storage, preferrably with sd card support with the dual sim design. Due to how I use smartphones. S10e has either a Snapdragon 855 or Exynos equivalent, 6Gb ram, dual sim/sd card scheme and 128Gb storage on the model I got. Couldn't ask for more for the price.
Seventh, I wanted some form of desktop mode to test if I can live with it alone during trips. This ends boiling things down to Samsung and Huawei I guess, but it wasn't a huge priority. Didn't test DeX a whole lot just yet, but it's just nice how most USB-C related extra functionalities seems to always be there in Samsung phones without having to go into discussion forums and whatnot to find out.
Eigth, something lighter and smaller than OnePlus 3. Not a huge priority too, but since screens are occupying more space, it's nice to have something smaller and lighter because the wallet case itself already adds a lot to it. S10e is smaller and lighter than the S10 Lite for some reason.
Ninth optional, stuff that I currently don't really use, but are nice to be there. NFC, wireless charging, power share, MHL, wired and wireless mirroring protocols, that sorta stuff.
Tenth, also a bit optional, big brand with good knowledge base and local support. My replacement OnePlus 3 screens were expensive and a bit hard to find because it's not a phone model well known around here. I had to wait long times, import the stuff, and repair the phone myself. This should be a bit easier with a Samsung phone, even if it's not the flagship model.
And so, the S10e became the perfect flagship killer replacement to my OnePlus 3, weirdly enough. Similar price point, similar flagship specs that matter, while keeping "older" standards that also matter to me. It really felt like an upgrade with no downgrades, which I was selfishly expecting.
I do hope Samsung keeps this line going... because my needs don't change much, and paradoxically, given how much choice we supposedly have to buy smartphones, it was extremely hard to find something that fits the needs.
My past OnePlus 3? I activelly chose to replace cracked screens twice instead of buying a new phone. Not because it was cheaper, but because I couldn't find a phone that fullfilled my needs as much as it did when the screen broke.
So I agree with MKHB one this one. Flagships are still important to showcase the bleeding edge and be the device for those who don't care about price. Low range is important for emerging markets and those who can't spend much on a smartphone, which will always be the majority of the global market in numbers. Mid range, currently, is where I feel most techies, most people trying to do as much as possible with a phone without breaking the bank really are.
In most cases when reviewer have to pay for their phones, the phones tend to either be in this category, or be a past flagship it seems.
1
-
Warning: I'm about to dump a truckload of shit on top of Pixel and Google, it's only my opinion, you don't have to agree with it, feel free to skip my comment.
Honestly? I have no idea why reviewers and people are giving Google a pass for probably the worst precedent set in smartphone land of recent years, from Google itself no less, but sure, let's discuss this.
First of all, it's not a flagship, they should at least have the decency to change the name, call it a Pixel 4b, or something else entirely if it's a new direction. If they are admitting defeat already, they should just call it Pixel Last, Pixel Quitter, Pixel End or something less vexxing. But not Pixel 5.
The argument I'm hearing from most reviewers and people is that a flagship SoC isn't needed anymore for a premium or top experience these days. Let's get down into this argument.
Sure, I happen to agree that most people don't really need the latest most powerful SoC for their daily stuff. I agree so much that I refuse to pay absurd prices for flagships. 1000+ bucks is way too much for that insignificant edge. Let the rich people buy them, we'll get the benefits of either mid rangers or flagship killers.
Arguably, most people haven't been needing the latest SoC for a few years now - basic navigation, media consumption, social networking, light gaming... mid rangers have been able to do those for a while now, for at least some 3 or 4 generations past.
But, hear me out on this, that's not really a justification to call a smartphone with mid range SoC a flagship, is it? Flagship never meant "good enough", flagship is latest and greatest, period. It always was, is, and should keep being despite Google's moronic take.
If there is one single component inside a smartphone that aptly defines in what category a smartphone is - low ranger, mid ranger, flagship and even stuff like flagship killer - it's the SoC. Almost everything else could be different - Screen resolution, refresh rates, camera configuration, smartphone size and weight, materials, extra features, RAM size, internal memory size, whether it has wireless charging or not, dual SIM, SD card support.... of course, more of those means it's in a better category, but as they are always changing, and flagships often skip some of those, you can't really tell which is which from that alone.
From the SoC though, you can. The main flagship line and above like limited edition niche phones (read folding screen phones), will always have the latest SoC. You get the latest Samsung Galaxy S something, it'll be Snapdragon 8xx. Same for LG, OnePlus, Huawei, Sony, all major brands. Exception for a few brands that have dramatically dropped out of the radar in recent years, like Motorola, or chinese brands that targets emerging markets - those just don't have flagships anymore.
It's not a matter of how functional the phone is, it's about flagships using the latest specs. I understand why some people wants to justify Google's move with an unrelated excuse, but I don't think people are taking the time to really see it for what it is. Whatever reason Google had to use a mid ranger SoC that is weaker than the previous flagship SoC, and still use the flagship denomination, there is no excuse. It broke the entire nomenclature thing, and it will confuse tons of consumers. Specially further ahead when those phones start aging faster than the competition.
Now, times ago when Google announced they were coming up with their own phones, what reviewers and tech people took as justification for the move, despite being puzzled on why Google would put out phones to compete with other brands that were also their costumers, was something like this - oh, Google is gonna make a phone to be the "founder's edition", or to point out the "model to follow", or to serve as basis for other brands to base their own devices on. How has this worked out?
If I remember correctly, the Pixel line has set a ton of negative precedents, and nothing else. See that I'm not talking about good specs specific to Pixel phones themselves, I'm talking about examples to follow. I know the camera tech is among the very best around, calm down.
Some Pixel phones had problems on release. Some stopped receiving new Android versions sooner than other brands... like little over a year after release? I remember there was at least one eggregious example on this... either the original Pixel, or the Pixel 2.
Costumer service I heard from good to appaling. It certainly didn't set any standards, it was just haphazard as most other main Android brands are, at best.
Pixel 2 ended up following the iPhone trend eliminating the headphone jack. Which lots of Android users didn't want to happen, particularly because Bluetooth keeps being a shitshow of a standard. Apple at the very least put their own standard in there to solve most of Bluetooth lack of intuitiveness problems. So it was worse than following the trend.
Instead of coming out with pure Android with a standard Google package, Google chose to create a Pixel OS that was neither one nor the other, but something in between. It's less heavy handed than other skins, but it also isn't pure Android. Obviously Google has the advantage of updating Pixel as soon as a new version of Android comes out, but that's a given. Problem is, because Google is using a Pixel skin, no matter how light it is, this ends up obscuring the idea that it serves as a model. Because it's not pure Android anymore.
Then again, this is something that Google doesn't seem to get, ever. Android One and Android Go has similar problems. They have changed overtime going outside their original propositions too.
Their strongest spec, the camera, can't be an example to follow because much of it's success depend on proprietary software working intimately with camera hardware to achieve results - it's not something other brands can take much advantage of. We can all gawk and praise what Google has achieved with Pixel cameras, but that's it.
Google also followed the price hike for flagships like all others did. Cut down cheaper models like 4a came after other brands had already done so. Not setting the precedent there too.
Afaik, Pixel phones also don't offer many of the extra standards on USB port that brands like Samsung always do - regular MHL screen mirroring, a desktop mode, the latest fast charging standard, etc. In many ways, Samsung is just better in setting a precedent standard on this for Android phones, in a way that I don't see Google ever being able to replicate. You know what you'll get with the main Galaxy line. You know what the main characteristics of a Note is. If you are a tecchie in emerging markets, you likely know what the compromises are for the A line. The S line, be it the main, the plus, or the cut down versions like Lite and e, all have DeX, mirroring, and all the extra stuff you'd expect to get - wireless charging, power share, knox, NFC, a bunch of ways to share files. I'm not all too familiar with the brand just yet, got my first Samsung phone recently, but the S10e, a past gen cut down version of the flagship tramples all over the Pixel 5.
The SoC in particular, which is eggregious, is somewhere between 10 to 15% faster depending if you get the Snapdragon or the Exynos version. And it's around half the price of the Pixel 5. It also holds almost every spec from the flagship that matters. Camera, ram, internal memory, wireless charging, stereo speaker using the earpiece, SD card, a side mounted fingerprint scanner which I prefer over the back mounted one because I use wallet style case, glass back, DeX, mirroring, etc.
And now, Google pulls this flagship not flagship shit.
I think it's safe to say Google didn't create a phone line to follow. It's just another brand, one that is becoming less and less consistent in strategy. It stood out for it's camera, like a one hit wonder Lumia line (feature wise, not number of phones), but almost everything else was just following trends, or bellow the estabilished average. Other stuff Google tried fizzled up. Soli? Dedicated AI chip? VR stuff.... what's it called... Daydream which they just killed?
It feels almost like some of the stuff LG tried to do with their ThinQ line, or the Velvet line. And even on that, fair comparison, I think LG did better, risked more. Dual DACs, full manual controls for camera, they had the last flagship with removable battery, the dual screen case thing, and now this weird cross shapped Wing thing. I think LG also had some model that tried to use a gesture over screen thing times before Google came out with Soli. It also didn't catch up, but it just seems LG is investing more on their ideas.
It's like a plague that affects Google. First on services, then apps, and now also hardware. Too big to fail, but also too big to truly innovate or revolutionize.
It's not don't be evil anymore, the tagline should be something like - Don't take us seriously. Or don't expect anything from us. Or don't know what we're doing anymore.
There. /endrant
1
-
Meh, for me that thing is a joke even as first gen, and I doubt it'll get much better in the 2nd gen, if it ever comes. The phone I just paid around 250 bucks a few months ago not only have better specs, it just works well aw a smartphone (Galaxy S10e, check the specs). Think about that. Paying over 5x more for gimmicky crap that doesn't work as advertised.
Not only that, to make things even worse, am I hearing this right? Are people really expecting for an overpriced Microsoft device to convince developers to make software to adapt for it's specific niche needs?
After Windows Phone failed spectacularly to do so, and further, Android tablets also failed to convince devs to port apps for dual app usage and whatnot? Ooohhh nonononono, not falling for this crap.
I don't hate Microsoft or anything like that, but this is the one area they don't get to come out with a turd saying it'll get polished for the next gen. Samsung can afford that. Apple would if they dared. Perhaps OnePlus and a few other brands. Not Microsoft.
1
-
Always remember phablets... they were fugly, expensive, looked ridiculous, everyone joked about them, the press kept asking who would want one of those, people tried using the Jobs quote on never making an iPhone of a bigger size because the size was perfect, Apple fanboys specially loved to make jokes how someone holding a Samsung Note to make calls looked ridiculous, blah blah blah. Nowadays, phablets of the time are actually smaller than your regular smartphone. Yep, for those who don't know or don't remember, the first Samsung Note which arguably launched the entire phablet joke thing was only 5.3". Note 9? 6.4". iPhone X? 5.8".
Point being, I bet that if this trend continues, gets refined, prices comes down and tech gets improved around it... it could eventually become a new norm. Not because it's new, not because it's different, not because of how it looks, not because of new fangled display tech, none of that. Simply because having a device you can unfold to get a bigger screen is useful. Just that. Useful. It always boils down to usability. All the rest is just hype, it dies down overtime, positive or negative. What matters is how useful it is.
It's more pleasing to watch videos in a bigger screen, you can see more of photos you are going to take with a bigger screen, you can consume content, read text and probably type better with a bigger touchscreen. There could be enough room for multitasking to make better sense, it could reach a size where it's less uncomfortable to use for work, it's closer to regular book size.
The problem of going above phablet levels is portability and handling. But if you keep portability and everyday handling of a smartphone, with the option to open it up for a more involved session, I don't see why people would reject a concept like that, whenever and if it reaches this state of course.
The questions now are: will Samsung or other brands be able to solve the durability problem? Will other brands also releasing foldable phones be able to do something better than Samsung? Will devs and Android make good use of the new form factor? How long will it take for prices to come down? Can we get hardware that is comparable in all fronts to a current smartphone model? How long will it take for pros to be worth the cons?
Those are key. Because it is a bigger shift than phablets. A bigger screen doesn't require many changes in production. It actually enabled smartphones to have bigger batteries and more space for internal components. Foldable phones requires new processes, an entirely different screen assembly, all designs up to now are kinda screen protector and smartphone cases unfriendly, apps and OS is more than a matter of scaling up... etc.
So yeah... this will either bomb and fail to happen right now because the tech just isn't ready yet, and then perhaps it'll come around again years later, or it's a start of a shift to a new direction full of potentials that will mostly not be realized. Because well, that's the way the industry is working nowadays. Let's face it - smartphones could be way more than they currently are right now, if it wasn't for industry level crap like lack of standardizations, fears of cannibalization, lack of vision and focus on features, among other stuff. Smartphones ARE portable computers, and yet we do very little with it versus the potential it actually has. So my fear is that with how current smartphone manufacturers are handling development these days, there is definitely a big risk of foldable phones not happening because they just don't try hard enough.
1
-
1
-
Good summary if not a bit overly optimistic Marques!
Well, I've been commenting and telling people to temper their expectations around 5G right from when people started talking about it. From start, it smelled like Bluetooth 5 but in a much bigger scale. Overpromisses, conflicting information, no real life tests, a bunch of promisses and expectations with no real analysis of what people were talking about, a whole lot of confusion around what the tech is really about, and tons of tech bloggers and journalists using that dream-like tone of voice when talking about it, painting a picture that just never ends up corresponding to reality. Like we're gonna live in a utopic future without wars, famine or disease because of 5G or something.
But I'm far more pessimistic about it, the reasons why it came to be, why it was being heavily marketed, and the overall propaganda tone that it took from a certain point on.
Put simply, 5G solves nothing, particularly in countries like the US or mine that are governed by effective telecom oligopolies. I can barely call it 5th generation... it's more like complimentary to 4G LTE rather than a next step.
For several years, at the rate infrastructure is built and based on how long it took for past generations to get a decent enough coverage, it'll be 5G at very specific places in very specific spots, and 4G as the default speed.
Worse, it'll mostly be public spaces. Because as noted, once there is a wall between you and the antenna, the drawbacks become plenty severe. It's as bad, if not even worse, than another very common piece of tech we are plenty used to - Wi-fi. That same wi-fi whose signal gets lost if you are on the other side of your tiny apartment or something.
Much more important though is how 4G could be plenty decent enough for most peoples' requirements... if it wasn't for stuff that has nothing to do with the core technology itself, but rather on artificial limitations imposed by the same telecoms that are advertising 5G as the solution for all things. Things like data throttling, data caps, absurd prices for extended data package plans, limited unlimited plans, super expensive plans that only rich people or businesses can afford that allows you to get full access to 4G.... etc etc.
I don't think most people in our countries even know how fast 4G LTE can be. Because it's always crippled by telecoms. It's always congested, it's always artificially limited, it's always running on old equipment that has gone past it's original specifications years ago.
But the whole marketing/scam strategy to advertise 5G to heaven and up had, in my pessimistic view again, more to do with taking out the focus from an aging, improperly maintaned, improperly scaled and upgraded, and fuck the costumer like strategy that was going on in current 4G, by putting focus on something new that is not really gonna be usable by the absolute vast majority of the country anytime soon.
Because that made tech savvy people and people interested in tech overall switch from criticizing 4G and telecom practices around 4G, to dreaming about the fake utopic 5G future that is never gonna happen.
It was also about the FCC, with it's corporate puppet Ajit Pai, trying to force the government to put money on the entire thing using false claims and false promises as justification for it.
For instance, saying 5G is gonna solve the problems of people living in rural and remote areas of the US that still doesn't have access to fast internet. Well, guess what - 5G is not gonna solve that, it's a worse tech in comparison to 4G for those purposes (because 4G just has a far longer reach and penetration power), and I highly doubt that the same telecoms who are refusing to install 4G antennas in certain places will agree to install full grids and arrays of 5G antennas there. The antennas are smaller, which helps, but in order for you to cover a similar area that a standard 4G antenna covers, we're talking an order of magniture more antennas.
Like, I've seen estimations that you'd need something like hundreds of those small 5G antennas to cover an area that a current 4G antenna tower can cover, and that's not even considering the problems of signal blockage by stuff like buildings, wooden fences, rain or whatever.
Their priority for years will be giving adequate coverage to big urban centers. Which, you know, is exactly what happened in every generation before. The places that need it the least because they already have good 4G coverage will be the places that will get first because of demand. Rural areas will be summarily ignored for the longest time.
And then, of course, there are the client side burdens. 5G consumes more power, requires new chips, and are currently found only in high end flagships that are priced around the $1000 bucks mark or more. That isn't a solution, that's just luxury. It's like saying low latency HDMI systems are a solution for people who cannot run cables through the house. Sure, the tech exists, but it's so prohibitively expensive that almost no one has access to it.
And like Marques said, the thing only works as long as you are in clear view of the antennas, without common obstructions like buildings and whatnot, which means the signal hunting phenomena is not only coming back, it'll be even worse than 4G and 3G. And this is not gonna be solved, it's a limitation inherent to the signal spectrum. You understand that as soon as you enter your home, unless you have an antenna installed inside the exact room of your home you are currently in, you'll get your signal halved or even completely dropped?
How can this replace 4G at all?
The thing that infuriates the most about all this for me is how several parallel initiatives were probably extinguished due to the high expectations 5G created in peoples' heads. I have no doubts several projects were cancelled, funding got cut down, and people just stopped trying to go for other ideas around wireless communications for those in need just because "5G is right around the corner" or some other bullshit.
Just like Bluetooth is the shit that keeps on truckin' despite being a constant nightmare to deal with for well past a decade now. The new and improved version that will solve all the problems is right around the corner, so let's just keep using this shit. On this very single instance, I'm all for whatever Apple is doing. If a decent standard won't be created to solve Bluetooth problems, Apple decided to make a proprietary one to make things work as they should.
But oh well, I could ramble and ramble all day on this... it changes nothing.
1
-
1
-
Pretty much the same... but I think I'd like P30 camera setup on the back instead. Agreed on pretty much all the rest.
Oh, and some stuff that don't exactly exist on current phones - closer to Asus ROG number of accessories and capabilities of using the ports for. More physical buttons, more ports. Potentially some stuff borrowed from the Razer phone too (remember that laptop shell powered by the phone?). Because with that kinda setup, there's a whole lot you could actually do with the phone that's kinda wasted potential.
But that would require an OS that is better fit for laptop/desktop usage, ability to switch to different modes (like a TV mode, a desktop mode, a tablet mode, a laptop mode with required accessories and apps), etc etc.
But you know, this is something I've been asking for, trying to hack phones, and testing all sorts of dongles, adaptors, half way solutions and whatnot since.... well, since I got my first smartphone back in the Xperia Z3 era. Something I came to accept we're never truly getting, not because it's impossible, but because it works against smartphone companies profit logic.
1
-
I'd be happy to get one of those ONLY to play the low tier indie titles in my over 2000 Steam game library... that's where I'm coming from. That it can play games like Elden Ring and Doom, or relatively recent triple A titles, is just kinda nuts.
Even though I will readily admit I was very surprised on what you can play on the Switch by itself, like MKBHD said, this is on another level.
Of course, most of my library won't be either verified or playable... and probably will take a long time to even be checked at all, but if just a few of them work, it'll definitely already be better than having to pay up to 20 times more for the same title on the Switch every single damn time. It at the very least eliminates the doubt I have every time if I'm wasting money there because the port could work so terribly bad, which then leads to, if I really really like the game, having to buy it on Steam instead and start all over again, because of course no cross compatibility.
Which is why if Steam takes too long to launch it in other parts of the world, I might just give up and go for one of the Chinese alternatives.... this really depends on when my next long trip will happen, or next scenario when it'd be extremely useful to have a capable portable machine around.
I guess the other thing people need to keep in perspective, even if they don't care much about it, is that the whole reason why so many Steam games don't work properly on it is because Valve decided to push Linux gaming instead of sticking to Windows. For at least some of us, this move alone is already worth the asking price.
It sure is a pain in the behind for those who just wanna play the games, but this is a game changing move for Linux, and the intention there is to have a more fair playing field overall for the future of PC gaming, which is no easy task. It's kinda though even if past Valve hardware projects were commercial failures, they were ultimately important for the Steam Deck existence... which is basically a combination of several technologies developed in these past products.
In case people are still wondering why DRM heavy games don't play well with the Deck, it's exactly because those are pretty unfair by themselves. Rootkits installed on a base assumption that every costumer is a potential pirate, cheater and whatnot, potentially harvesting data and having too much of a low level access into your property.
1
-
1
-
1
-
So, here's something a bit against my own sense that has been happening due to recent situation and purchases.
I've been a proponent of foldable screen phones for a while now, before they started actually coming out, because of the portability factor.
The thinking goes, it's gonna be far easier to travel with a smartphone sized device alone instead of having to carry a tablet, sometimes a laptop, perhaps a portable gaming system, and the smartphone itself.
I'm of course exaggerating a bit, but like, it's what you sometimes want to do if it's a long trip and you plan to keep doing all the stuff you do at home.
I'm also constantly nagging about a proper desktop mode for all devices, so that if you feel more comfortable and you have access to say a big screen TV, a keyboard and mouse, you can always turn the device you have in hand into a desktop computer setup of sorts.
Given all that, recently more of this stuff is becoming true. I'm typing this comment from a tablet, it's connected to a portable keyboard that is almost perfect in size and portability to me, and my current phone is not foldable, but it has a desktop mode, made even more practical now that Samsung's DeX also has wireless connectivity via Miracast.
I think my overall predictions were right, this is becoming better for a travel/ extended holiday situation, but one of the key things that I have been thinking about for over 10 years now - that part I might be wrong.
I had this idea that it'd be just perfect if I could shove all functionalities in a single device.
So, crazy fantastic talk here, but just imagine. A rollable phone (closer to that recent Oppo phone, but going more crazy), that is the size of a thick pen perhaps to take calls and extremely basic functions, but can roll out a screen going from smartphone size all the way to tablet and then laptop screen size.
It can also connect to a bigger screen for desktop mode usage, presentations, and even a cinema session, covering all the range.
It's one device only, so you don't have to worry with synchronizing and organizing your spread out data... which is always kind of a hassle. And ideally, we'd switch to a single OS instead of having to constantly wrap your head around going from Windows to Android to a game system to something else all the time. It's a single all encompassing system that re-skins itself accordingly, but underneath it's the same file structure, same general operational characteristics, so you don't have to re-learn how to deal with that side all the time.
Ok, given all that, sorry to ramble to much - more recently I came to the realization that a single device already isn't the ideal for me anymore. Perhaps it could still be, but only when we reach yet another step in evolution where a single small device can power multiple screens and interfaces all at once.
But forced in the current situation (I've been out of home since late last year), what I'm noticing is that I'm always using two devices at once, at minimum.
Tablet for watching something, smartphone to read related information. Tablet to write a long comment like this one, smartphone to search for a link, a word in english I forgot, some technical term that I'm not sure if it's correct or not, a link to another YouTube video or channel I want to mention. Playing a game on the Switch, smartphone to search for some tip. Chatting with friends on the smartphone, checking e-mails on the tablet.
On another hand, there are these time waster games that I play on the smartphone that I always reach to if I'm only just listening to a long news style video, or I'm using the smartphone to play music, among other stuff where I want the smartphone to be there by itself, so it can't be used for another thing.
I know this probably sounds kinda dumb for people who are already highly used to doing stuff this way, but I only fully realized this is how I use my different computing devices this year... perhaps because I needed changing and reorganizing how it's done, as I've been so long away from home.
Imagine that, I've been on Android only for almost a year now... my Windows desktop back at home.
I think I'm still more comfortable with that sort of configuration, but you kinda learn to adapt overtime.
And I really wanted to see if going Android only would ease up my mom's personal experience... she only use basic stuff, but there are some stuff that she's so used to doing in a Windows desktop that I'm still not sure if she can really make a full transition.
Anyways, what does this have to do with the folding screen tablet? I'm thinking that perhaps I'm less enthusiastic about it now, because I'm not sure about my idealized scenario anymore.
If I expect myself to be always using two devices at once, and it'll often be at minimum a combination of a bigger device - like a tablet, laptop or a desktop -, and a portable/at hand device like a smartphone.... then the utility of having a single device that can perform like both categories just doesn't make a whole lot of sense anymore. :P
Portability aspect of it is still very interesting, don't get me wrong... but it's still so early days and there are so many limitations with the entire tech that I don't see myself paying extra for and adopting the tech for a long long time. Particularly because the software development side is just so disappointing.
Android needed first to solve it's problems with convincing devs to make proper tablet mode. Foldables were off for a bad start from that alone. Tablet apps, despite passing through a hot commodity phase, several of them still sucks. It's just crazy how some extremely popular apps still acts all wonky on Android tablets.
Windows, I'm not sure how the experience is nowadays, but back when I had a Windows tablet, it was just as bad if not worse. Microsoft insisted too much on crap like S mode and Windows Store, they should've set those things apart and done a core Windows optional tablet mode without trying to force it a la Windows 8, but more organically integrated.
So it ends up that currently, I don't want a Samsung Fold, a Moto Flip, a Oppo Roll, a Surface Duo or this Lenovo folding screen tablet.... and it'll take several generations for it to be attractive to me, not only because of hardware, but mainly because of software.
It's fine to botch cosmetic stuff like notches, bezel less screens, among some other stuff... but if you are messing with something that directly affects usability, it either works as well as stuff works today, or it's immediately a let down. The glitches reviewers were seeing on the Surface Duo? Even though they are understandable, they are also straight out unacceptable. Because you gotta have stability on the device you are using several hours everyday. Glitches, no matter how minor and how solvable they are, will add up stress, anger and straight out rage over a single day. No can do.
So, my approach can be too boring, too utilitarian, too oriented towards reliability... but you know, personal opinion. I'm not overly interested in the devices reviewers... review. I'm more interested in the stuff they are willing to use personally on a daily basis. And most that I follow are more often than not, with one to two year old devices, because recent flagships are introducing more problems than solving old ones...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cursed inheritance that can be seen on the evolution of the commenting side of the platform I guess, right?
I mean, seriously... this isn't to lay blame on YouTube, Google, or whatever... but you gotta understand what we're working with so that you get why such problems arise.
YouTube had it's own very messy very primitive and very hellish commenting system before it was acquired by Google. At that time, I basically restricted myself to only watch the video and never interact in comments because honestly, among all commenting systems I used in social networks, discussion forums, blogs and whatnot, YouTube had the worst crowd and system of it all put together several times over. It was a cesspit with no redeemable features, pure and simple.
Then Google came along, and integrated Google+ to it here... which a hella ton of people did not like and complained about, but honestly, for a while and for myself, I think it slightly improved things. Not by much, but still.
And then, very very slowly, I have to recognize that a few things did improve on a personal, still anecdotal level, but still, not by much. Particularly on videos of a few creators, it seemed a semblance of a community started propping up, with bad comments getting kicked to the curb, and more productive discussions going around. Still nowhere near the golden age of discussion forums and blogs, but somewhat better.
The problem in all of this is that the foundations of the system remains the same. You can take a commenting administration system of just about anything else you can do out there... social networks, discussion forums, blogs, webportals, eCommerce platforms, online collab software, even down to stuff like school and university Intranet software, condominium administration systems... the list goes on and on. They almost all have a comment administration and moderation system that is more functional, more usable, has more management tools and whatnot in comparison to YouTube's commenting system.
The commenters themselves might not be great, but the system for moderation probably has more resources, more options, more tools, more flexibility to moderate the hell out of comments.
And I'm not talking only administration/channel owner side, I'm also taking about what is available for commenters themselves.
What happens when you have this bad foundation situation is that it probably becomes extremely hard to build on top of it. Like, it doesn't have the proper foundations to handle the types of functionalities people (both administrators and users) want it to have. Basic stuff like multiple sorting functionalities, prioritization choices, batch functionalities, advanced filtration systems, advanced detection systems, multiple choices for interaction, user verification and analysis, policy making, whitelisting and blacklisting functionalities based on multiple identification factors, user management and administration, etc etc etc.
I think YouTube's intention on migrating all it's commenting system to Google+ was a shift in foundations to make the general system work better, and it probably accomplished it to some level, but the base problem is that Google+ also didn't have a very robust moderation system by itself. Probably miles better than the raw YouTube commenting system, but still nowhere near a discussion forum system for instance.
In fact, it seems that for some reason, on newer more popular platforms the concept of a robust moderation system just degraded overtime instead of getting better. All these new social networks and content sharing platforms seems to have a worse commenting administration and moderation system than older platforms.
And I'm only writing all of this because a long time ago, before even Facebook, I had been moderating comments in discussion forums, early social networks (remember Orkut?), newsgroups, among a few different groups. I did for for almost half a decade, perhaps a full decade, no pay, just on the hobby side.
Even though I never moderated anything with as many people as say an MKBHD channel, I can imagine the pain of it. I at most could handle a few hundred thousand people group with less than ten thousand active users, and I'm only drawing from that experience alone, which I never want to ever go back again, seriously. My ease to write long comments comes from it, because of all the rulemaking, explanations on why it's important, long discussions on what freedom of speech constitutes and all the crap you have to deal with when you are moderating comments.
And I can also see why YouTube has a hard time handling it - YouTube's commenting system was built on a foundation that isn't even on the same level that moderation systems of 20+ years ago were. And to be fair, I'm pretty sure significant improvements were made over the years, but in an extremely sluggish pace and the way it currently is, it's still not even close to being as functional and as feature complete as again, several commenting moderation system already were back 20+ years ago.
You just have to look at something as mundane as a Wordpress blog commenting system crude by itself without extra mods to see how much you are missing out. It's just insane. It's almost like comparing a plain HTML page to a full feature dynamically updated modern one.
So yeah, fully agree with MKBHD on this one... I just lost hope of YouTube ever really making significant improvements to it a very long time ago... kinda like I lost hope on Android ever getting it's sh*t together and making a single messaging system that has at least all features of modern platforms. It doesn't seem like a priority to them, and the risk of making it worse than it already is, and displeasing a ton of people even if they get it right, impedes them on dedicating time and money on it. Only my personal guess, not anything based on fact.
1
-
The charge port analogy... Apple is actually part of the USB-IF (implementers forum). xD
There really is no actual excuse for Apple not to use USB-C on iPhones... USB-C is an industry standard, and Apple is part of the forum that implements it. It got in pretty late in the game, but it's in.
Well, there are reasons, but it's not much of an excuse. Basically, Apple gets a whole ton of money on licensing fees for 3rd parties to make cables and accessories compatible with lightning, and there are some technical reasons behind it too, but they are mostly fluff.
Tesla Superchargers use proprietary technology. Only Tesla makes the charging stations, and the connector, even though it has been standardized between models, was also estabilished by Tesla.
Which is probably among the main reasons why other auto makers are not interested in using it... they'd be interested if it was an industry standard with open tech that enables anyone to make the chargers, use the connectors, vote equally on prioritization of new features, and implement in cars without licensing payments and whatnot.
Tesla might be open to sharing the SuperCharger network, as Musk says, but that's only half the truth. He's saying he doesn't mind if other auto makers wants to adopt the tech... not that they won't have to pay for it. And then, what happens with it will also be under Tesla's control... which if you think about it, if your competitor controls the way charging is done in your electric car, that's a pretty huge ammount of control.
If Musk really wanted to open up the SuperCharger network for other companies to adopt like a standard, Tesla would have open up the tech, call for a standards forum, etc... same stuff that was done with USB.
It's not that I disagree with Marques with how important it is to have several charging stations spread throughout wherever drivers are going... it's just that I think automakers will only settle for a standard, when it is an actual industry standard.... kinda like USB-C. With an implementers forum that your company can have a voice on development, control and whatnot. Which is likely not happening anytime soon.
Unfortunately, it never happens early in the lifecycle of technologies. Remember all the proprietary connectors of early cellphones? Well, this whole thing is likely happening to electric cars too... hopefully to be solved faster. :P
1
-
Finally, I should've known MKB was gonna be the one to answer my question.
I had a nagging suspicion that even though Essencial made some of the barest(?) Android skins ever, it was still a skin that needed to go through Essencial for an update instead of receiving it directly from Google... and this is the case. I've seen a whole lot of publication straight saying this is stock Android, but it really isn't, no matter if it's almost exactly it.
People should know that it's not only os development that causes upgrade delays.
I mean, I like the approach, but I'd rather get a Pixel Phone instead for the most important part of it: getting OS updates without a middleman.
Honestly, I also don't like skins of several other brands... but it seems pretty much all brands these days are walking towards vanilla, they finally got the message that we don't want all that extra bloat, and I even like the touches Oxygen OS brought to OnePlus.
In the end though, Essencial's promise for fast updates is only that - a promise. Like so many others. I'd trust it as much as promises of shipment, promises of release, among others.
Not that I'd ever get one at that price though. xD
1
-
1
-
I dunno about something something killer, because I think that's a hugely stupid idea from principle specially for an emerging technology. Why the heck would you want to kill a company that is working in new tech, makes no sense. The term is already sensationalistic enough for well estabilished concepts, let alone emerging ones.
But putting it in terms of real competition, these new concepts (which is all they are) could be competition.... if they had come out when Tesla was still announcing their vision, and these concepts were still around developing their entire product stack.
As it is, these new cars are nothing more than showroom concepts from unknown brands. Same stage, like MKHB said, that Faraday Future was and died.
I don't even hold supercharging facilities and autonomous driving capabilities against them. There are some potential ways around those, that would be very half-assed but still could work for some. Like charging on regular grid only with some technology to improve charging times, and just ourtight buying autonomous driving tech from another company. Again, half assed, but could work somehow.
The thing Tesla has that no one else has, specially these new concept models, is infrastructure - even if construction is still ongoing. We're talking about the Gigafactories here.
You see, the biggest thing Tesla is doing is not Model 3, Model X or whatever car model. The biggest thing they are doing are humongous factories that are producing stuff like the huge ammounts of lithium batteries necessary for the cars, in an automated-as-possible way to have flexibility for changes, together with other lines of products or stacks that are considering the upwards demand in energy consumption lots of EVs will put into the grid - those Tesla home batteries and solar panel technology.
They are not envisioning it, they are not showing projections for the future, they are doing it. Tesla has already overcome, even if they still have few kinks to work out, the hardest and worst part of every project - making it happen.
This is what puts Tesla ahead of even traditional brands. Traditional car manufacturers might have the history, tradition, and several complex portions of making cars on their side, plus the money of course, but this infrastructure around the tech for batteries and whatnot, they either don't have it just yet, or they are not focusing on it as much as Tesla is.
Again, I don't even think big car manufacturers being conservative about what EVs can do or coming up with bizarre ideas is necessarily a bad thing... but the fact that they don't have a focus on or dominate the other part of EVs - batteries, charging tech, infrastructure, testing, etc - that's where they might fail if they don't invest a whole ton of money on that side of things.
A proper Tesla competitor would have to think about EVs that way, and enter production asap. I'm not even much of a Musk fan myself, but the way he envisioned EVs is far ahead of anyone else, because the scope is just much bigger. While he's working on the entire stack of his vision, most EV companies are working on the car alone.
Let's talk about, for instance, barriers. Say these startups don't go bankrupt and keeps developing their vision. Ok, now they want to sell it at scale. If they don't have a lithium battery factory, they'll have to rely on 3rd parties. In a world that is demanding more and more lithium battery production, what would happen if you suddenly have an influx of cars that also needed them? Well, you'd be paying more and more for it, the EV company would be tied to 3rd party prices fluctuations, and you could be losing control fast.
In fact, for Tesla it'd actually be pretty great if some of those startups survived. Tesla could focus on making some types of cars, let others focus in other types of cars, and then just close a deal up for usage of not only superchargers, but also batteries, solar panels and whatnot. Tesla is already working on the other part of stack, and if market pressure is enough that other EV companies have nowhere else to go, they will have to work with Tesla one way or another.
Even if Tesla faced a catastrophic scenario where their cars became ultimately useless in comparison to cars from other brands, they'd still have that other part of the stack to lock down other manufacturers. See where I'm getting with this?
I always thought that the biggest potential competitor to Tesla would be a company like Google. I'm not sure why Google decided not to go the other way though. By this point, I had imagined that Google would have already outright bought a big car brand, integrated their autonomous driving system with it, also started heavily investing in all tech involving EVs, and started selling cars already. But they are missing this bus. They could still sell their autonomous driving tech to other companies, but again, if you are not working in all fronts, you don't have a complete vision, and at some point this becomes a huge disadvantage.
1
-
1
-
I don't really have a horse on this game... probably getting neither, at least not this soon anyways.
And I'd likely go for Playstation if I was going for something, mostly because games. Unless Microsoft decides to leverage their most recent purchase to the upteenth level... xD Because I need mah Scrolls and Fallout.
But if there is one thing I'm very iffy about Playstation overall, is on Sony convincing developers to use extra hardware stuff.
Perhaps this time because it's in the gamepad and all it gets better adoption, but over the years, extra hardware stuff always seems to get burned.
See, I had the original EyeToy, Playstation Eye, and a few other accessories. I remember those motion controllers. Dualshock 3 touchpad thing.
This is far from unique to Playstation, to be fair, but it just seems these extra stuff always tends to get lost into a handful of games, mostly demos and games from the parent company, and for the rest of the console lifetime the feature is just there left unused.
Kinect 2, 3D in 3DS, Wii U tablet screen, motion controls everything, gamepad microphones and speakers, special cameras and sensors...
I've been out of consoles for a long time, so honestly, I don't really know how this is going nowadays anymore. Has it gotten any better? How's Playstation VR?
1
-
Good general cover MKHB, way better than most videos and articles I've read so far.
The final comment is specially relevant... I won't say it's the case, but this all could potentially be yet another ZTE-like move. Remember how fast that was reversed?
I'll just add something that most coverages about this case are leaving out so that people have a clearer understanding of Huawei itself.
We, on western countries, tend to think about Android as Google, because that's our experience.
But here's something people might not think much about at first - US really hasn't been a huge market for Huawei. Afaik, internationally, India, Russia, countries in South America and Europe are bigger markets for the company. But even considering those, again, as far as I know, Huawei's growth, biggest marketplace, and where they have really been selling most of their units is... in China. Not in western countries, not even in other asian countries, China itself is it's biggest market.
When you think about chinese companies that really have a foothold in US, you should be thinking about OnePlus and perhaps Motorola (the smartphone division only), which is now owned by Lenovo. That's it.
Now, about the chinese market. As some people will know, a whole lot of american companies already cannot operate there because of the great chinese firewall. US devs and services have been struggling for decades to enter and get a foothold in China even when they have to comply with chinese government censorship because what effectively happened over the years is that chinese businesses and corporations propped themselves up to replace each and every western app and service counterpart.
For your average chinese smartphone user, this US ban matters very little. With the obvious exception of expats, international minded people, and just overall the chinese people who do use some US based apps, of course.
Since not many people know about these, I'll just dive a little bit deeper.
The top ranking apps in China are all chinese. Most smartphone manufacturers in China plus the giant chinese telecoms have their own app store - it's not like the west that relies heavily on Google Play Store. Some names to learn about: Baidu everything, WeChat, Youku, BiliBili, QQ, Weibo, Alibaba everything, Tencent everything, Didi, etc etc. Maps, ridesharing, microblogging (Twitter), social networks, online payment systems, cloud storage, video streaming services, review websites, eCommerce in general, dating websites, browsers, gaming portals... anything you can imagine being used on a daily basis, they have an app for that.
Arguably and funny enough, it could be said that China has a bigger diversity too... more than a single monopoly for each of those. Duopoly, olygopoly perhaps, but still more diverse than the west overall.
So, yeah, it is a huge hit for Huawei to lose business with Google, Intel, Broadcomm, Qualcomm and other american or american partner companies. But it is also good to keep in mind that despite the hit, what Huawei is mostly potentially losing is the international market, and will potentially have to spend lots of money and downgrade things a bit in their devices with replacement for chinese chip makers and chinese developers.
It's not by very far too. We know mostly of the american hardware companies, but there are actually plenty of chinese hardware manufacturers that are very up to par. Huawei's own HiSilicon SoC and chip maker is just one example of that. But if you even had contact with other chinese brands that are less known in the west and uses more chinese components, you'll know they aren't very far behind.
I don't wanna diminish the impact of such a thing, but it's important to know that Huawei is nowhere near closing doors even if this entire thing comes down to it's worst consequences - complete irreversible blockage.
It's a showstopper for doing business inside the US, it is a huge hindrance for Huawei to do business internationally... India, countries in South America, Africa, Europe, and even Asian countries, afaik, still have a somewhat big reliance on Google services. Huawei would need to either convince all these international users to switch to Huawei store or some other independent store, trust in the app database... or some other strategy like sideloading, rooting and all that stuff we had to go through sometime ago. Any of those would have a big impact.
But probably, the main Huawei market remains unaffected. The growth of the company has way more to do with the growth of chinese economy.
The thing that worries me the most is if this trade war keeps escalating like this. It's gonna be a huge hit for chinese businesses, and it's gonna be a huge hit for worldwide economy in general... but I still think the one who has the most to lose in all this is actually the US itself. I can't even imagine the disaster that would be chinese government responding in kind and passing some measure that says chinese companies cannot to business with the US anymore. I don't think the US administration has a good enough idea of what that would cause. The ties are way bigger and waaaay deeper than most people think. Just losing business with a single chinese company - Foxconn for instance - would probably kill most of Foxconn itself, but the damage to american businesses would be far worse.
People don't get this, but mass production at scales that US consumption needs can only be met by chinese companies. It's not a matter of going to other asian countries or mostly other countries that are in development. China has almost 5 times the population of the US, the workforce is massive, the infrastructure that they build there for industries and shipment logistics is incomparable to anything else in the world, and the technologies and strategies that chinese companies build around massive demand from developed countries is unique to China. This obviously can be seen as a good and bad thing, but the thing people have to understand is that it is sort of a miracle built upon several factors. It isn't something that any other country will be able to replicate in short time. Even the couple of decades that China took to make this change happen was miraculously short.
Anyways, I already rambled too much. Just to give a different outlook.
1
-
Pretty much the same... but I think I'd like P30 camera setup on the back instead. Agreed on pretty much all the rest.
Oh, and some stuff that don't exactly exist on current phones - closer to Asus ROG number of accessories and capabilities of using the ports for. More physical buttons, more ports. Potentially some stuff borrowed from the Razer phone too (remember that laptop shell powered by the phone?). Because with that kinda setup, there's a whole lot you could actually do with the phone that's kinda wasted potential.
But that would require an OS that is better fit for laptop/desktop usage, ability to switch to different modes (like a TV mode, a desktop mode, a tablet mode, a laptop mode with required accessories and apps), etc etc.
But you know, this is something I've been asking for, trying to hack phones, and testing all sorts of dongles, adaptors, half way solutions and whatnot since.... well, since I got my first smartphone back in the Xperia Z3 era. Something I came to accept we're never truly getting, not because it's impossible, but because it works against smartphone companies profit logic.
1
-
I wouldn't pay for any alternative form, but yeah... I'm also more interested in the rollable now, and what might come from other companies around the same idea.
Just that, I think at this point, in this stage of the evolution of it, there must be some pretty harsh limitations of what you can actually do with those displays...
Here's the thing about flexible displays in smartphones - I've been hearing about them for years and years... half a decade or more? And I wasn't expecting to see a functional consumer grade product for at least another half decade.
I was wrong.... but not completely so. xD They are indeed out, insanely priced, and kinda prototype-y still.
It's almost like these companies decided to push that incremental design and development to the public instead of keeping it under wraps. You know kinda how products like gamepads and tablets often have 10+ design iterations and whatnot? Put it out and let the public test and partially fund it.
Then again, the biggest barrier that always showed up on CES prototypes is about those flexible OLEDs being extremely fragile and transforming into a mess of dead pixels by the end of the show. Amazing that they solved that somehow. It was an extremely hard and harsh barrier that endured for years, getting ever so slightly better in every CES they showed a new prototype.
Anyways, dream of a perfect phone with the tech as one must, for me it's all about functionality. So what I imagined was a phone that can get even smaller than what we currently have while not in use, or in phone mode only (which people don't even use anymore), getting to smartphone size for one mode of operation, up to a 10" tablet in another mode of operation. I did the math, my 10" tablet has a screen size of a bit over 3 of my smartphone standing vertically. It's almost perfect. :P
Dumb as it may sound, it's only because that's how I use my devices. My generic trip tech kit includes a smartphone and tablet. It used to include a laptop, but I'm getting more and more used to only smartphone plus tablet while on trips, particularly now that the usability of those devices are getting better and better.
And so, the idea was to have a screen entirely folded into a cilinder shapped phone, or slim shapped phone like the unreleased last Essencial thing, that could be pulled out to regular smartphone size, and then 10" tablet size when needed.
That's the dream, and.... Xiaomi was it? Went to a closer direction with that rollable prototype/phone?
Problem is, in betweens don't make a whole lot of sense to me. Mainly because until you get this design perfectly right, it's actually worse than the standard brick phone. It's more fragile, losing years of gorilla glass development. It has less internal space, so less battery. It'll keep being too expensive because there's not viable insane mass production for it, costs too much to be done.
And don't get me wrong, I love that they are trying and it might be the only way to do it... keep releasing phones, keep testing and teasing the market, etc. But realistically? I still think we're half a decade or so from me taking the jump to get an alternative design phone that is an improvement of the standard brick form factor I use today.
And then the whole question I always had about these new device pops up. If the problem here is only screen size, will such an intricate complicated perfect solution come out first, my needs will change eliminating my interest in it... or, and get this, will the need for different screen sizes disappear altogether with a release of some AR glasses the shape and size of regular glasses?
Because that's really the ultimate solution, right? You have your computing unit in whichever form, potentially one portable to carry around and one big hunky one to keep at home and/or work, and the screen size doesn't matter because it's right at your face, and you can make it as small or big as you want.
It just needs to somehow solve the comfort problems, get to a high enough resolution and refresh rate, and not make you look like a dork.
A series or pretty huge problems, but you know, I'm talking about half a decade.
Not only that, glasses that can be used as a screen for any device is way more portable than any other solution, it's hands free (meaning you don't have to deal with a gunky fingerprinty mess), it'd finally separate screens as hardware from their fixed function parts (video game, TV, desktop pc, etc) and individualize the experience - you can still share stuff, but everyone who wants to see something will need either their own glasses, or a shared screen of sorts.
There's another foundational piece of this tech that has been slowly and quietly evolving during the years which I have been following around - screencasting. Setting Chromecast and Android TV aside, years ago I got myself a ScreenBeam Mini 2 dongle. It was kinda slow, didn't work with most devices, got uncomfortably hot, and eventually it gave out. Just stopped working one day and died.
This year I got a generic chinese 4K Miracast dongle. It's fast, and works with my tablet, smartphone and laptop. Instructions on how to use it pop up on the TV as the standard wallpaper. It also got smaller, and gets less hot... like warm instead of uncomfortably burning hot. And so, if there is a big screen with accessible HDMI input wherever I'm going, I already have means of using it as a screen for all my devices... but the Nintendo Switch, because Nintendo is always behind in those things even when it didn't need to (the Switch is essencially an Android tablet after all).
Anyways, long comment, mind flush. o/
1