Technology Android
- Thread starter THEV1LL4N
- Start date
Why do you want Android One though? If you do, most of the Nokia phones are running Android One and some of them are much better than this Motorola.
I see this from two perspectives:
1. When I saw the announcement, I didn't really care about the business side. I'm super excited about building with these chips. I will surely upgrade my PC to Zen2 and I will see the biggest jump in CPU performance in over a decade, which is really exciting (despite all my praises for AMD, I have been stuck with a Kaby Lake processor that was just too recent to upgrade, even though it got completely depreciated by Ryzen).
2. I think most people will think like I did above. Ryzen was a tremendous success despite no OEM adoption (they are mostly signed with Intel). Most businesses and individual builders went with Ryzen because of how good of a chip that is. Data centers and server farms are all switching to Ryzen because those businesses care about having the most efficient chips and people who make decisions there know their shit. AMD is reclaiming their market share and to some extent mindshare (no matter how difficult it probably is against a technologically lagging but money-rich giant like Intel). Many purchasers aren't silly and they want the best technology, and that's what Ryzen delivers. I think that trend will skyrocket with Zen2 on 7nm due to how much better it is, as Intel will have nothing comparable for a really long time. The original Ryzen was comparable with Intel's Coffee Lake, just cheaper and more efficient - OEMs were taking the "wait and see" approach, but with Zen2, I think more and more will want it in their products too to the point it becomes worth it to lose Intel deals.
Most of all, AMD are doing great financially since they launched Ryzen. As long as that continues and they continue doing what they're doing, I'm happy, because they are the only company that pushes the envelope in the CPU and GPU space. Since Ryzen launched last year, Intel made more progress in their CPUs to catch up than they did over a whole decade prior, even if it means just gluing in more of the same Skylake CPU cores and calling it 9th gen. In the GPU space, there's Nvidia - stagnating and ramping up their prices wherever there's no direct AMD competitor. As long as AMD are doing well, I'm happy, because it means progress, and I believe they will be doing well for as long as they have the better product for long enough.
The first wave is targeting their data center customers (as that's where the demand for Ryzen chips is insane at the moment), the second wave is desktop and only then they will go mobile. Like I mentioned earlier, OEMs are mostly signed with Intel, so mobile chips are not that relevant to AMD, as the user can't choose which processor his laptop will be running. Surely the 7nm mobile chips will be a really huge deal though. You will see twice the energy efficiency of an average Intel chip, and a much stronger GPU. Surely the mobile GPUs are nothing like the full sized desktop GPUs though, but they use similar technologies, just scale them down to super low power levels.
I see this from two perspectives:
1. When I saw the announcement, I didn't really care about the business side. I'm super excited about building with these chips. I will surely upgrade my PC to Zen2 and I will see the biggest jump in CPU performance in over a decade, which is really exciting (despite all my praises for AMD, I have been stuck with a Kaby Lake processor that was just too recent to upgrade, even though it got completely depreciated by Ryzen).
2. I think most people will think like I did above. Ryzen was a tremendous success despite no OEM adoption (they are mostly signed with Intel). Most businesses and individual builders went with Ryzen because of how good of a chip that is. Data centers and server farms are all switching to Ryzen because those businesses care about having the most efficient chips and people who make decisions there know their shit. AMD is reclaiming their market share and to some extent mindshare (no matter how difficult it probably is against a technologically lagging but money-rich giant like Intel). Many purchasers aren't silly and they want the best technology, and that's what Ryzen delivers. I think that trend will skyrocket with Zen2 on 7nm due to how much better it is, as Intel will have nothing comparable for a really long time. The original Ryzen was comparable with Intel's Coffee Lake, just cheaper and more efficient - OEMs were taking the "wait and see" approach, but with Zen2, I think more and more will want it in their products too to the point it becomes worth it to lose Intel deals.
Most of all, AMD are doing great financially since they launched Ryzen. As long as that continues and they continue doing what they're doing, I'm happy, because they are the only company that pushes the envelope in the CPU and GPU space. Since Ryzen launched last year, Intel made more progress in their CPUs to catch up than they did over a whole decade prior, even if it means just gluing in more of the same Skylake CPU cores and calling it 9th gen. In the GPU space, there's Nvidia - stagnating and ramping up their prices wherever there's no direct AMD competitor. As long as AMD are doing well, I'm happy, because it means progress, and I believe they will be doing well for as long as they have the better product for long enough.
The first wave is targeting their data center customers (as that's where the demand for Ryzen chips is insane at the moment), the second wave is desktop and only then they will go mobile. Like I mentioned earlier, OEMs are mostly signed with Intel, so mobile chips are not that relevant to AMD, as the user can't choose which processor his laptop will be running. Surely the 7nm mobile chips will be a really huge deal though. You will see twice the energy efficiency of an average Intel chip, and a much stronger GPU. Surely the mobile GPUs are nothing like the full sized desktop GPUs though, but they use similar technologies, just scale them down to super low power levels.
Last edited:
The current Ryzen chips are very good. The 7nm Ryzen chips are going to be significantly better, but it'll be a longer while until something like the 2400g comes in 7nm. They will announce the desktop products during their keynote in January, so if you're not in a rush, personally I'd probably wait and see until then.
The CPUs aren't "smaller". They are made using higher precision machinery.
CPUs are the pinnacle of nanotechnology. Each CPU contains at least hundreds of thousands of transistors (each 8-core Ryzen 7 has almost 5 million of them across a surface smaller than a finger nail). While each transistor performs the same function regardless of its size, the smaller you make each, the less energy it requires to work and less heat it's capable of producing (proportionally to its size).
To put it simply, "14nm" and "7nm" mean the level of precision up to which you can carve in silicon. If the smallest feature can be 7nm as opposed to twice as large, it means you can shrink each transistor to half its original size.
So while upgrading from 14nm to 7nm manufacturing tool you can now create the same processor that's exactly half the size, fully functional, generating half the heat and using half the energy, that's not what they generally do. Usually that means they can fit twice as many transistors onto the same processor size, and since all elements are smaller, they require significantly less energy, generate less heat and can perform more operations per second thanks to having more transistors, each of them requiring less energy.
Shrinking the manufacturing node has always been the largest source of energy efficiency gains, so you can then develop larger and higher performance architectures that fit in the same size and thermal envelope as the weaker architecture on a larger process node.
The jump from 14nm to 7nm that we are seeing now is one of the largest ones in recent history. Previously it was something like 65-> 45, 45->32, 32->22, 22->14nm etc. Now the features literally halved in size, which is amazing.
The CPUs aren't "smaller". They are made using higher precision machinery.
CPUs are the pinnacle of nanotechnology. Each CPU contains at least hundreds of thousands of transistors (each 8-core Ryzen 7 has almost 5 million of them across a surface smaller than a finger nail). While each transistor performs the same function regardless of its size, the smaller you make each, the less energy it requires to work and less heat it's capable of producing (proportionally to its size).
To put it simply, "14nm" and "7nm" mean the level of precision up to which you can carve in silicon. If the smallest feature can be 7nm as opposed to twice as large, it means you can shrink each transistor to half its original size.
So while upgrading from 14nm to 7nm manufacturing tool you can now create the same processor that's exactly half the size, fully functional, generating half the heat and using half the energy, that's not what they generally do. Usually that means they can fit twice as many transistors onto the same processor size, and since all elements are smaller, they require significantly less energy, generate less heat and can perform more operations per second thanks to having more transistors, each of them requiring less energy.
Shrinking the manufacturing node has always been the largest source of energy efficiency gains, so you can then develop larger and higher performance architectures that fit in the same size and thermal envelope as the weaker architecture on a larger process node.
The jump from 14nm to 7nm that we are seeing now is one of the largest ones in recent history. Previously it was something like 65-> 45, 45->32, 32->22, 22->14nm etc. Now the features literally halved in size, which is amazing.
Last edited:
Yeah, and not only commercial. While someone created a 1nm transistor last year for research purposes, it was a long and large effort to create a single 1nm unit. While commercial CPUs have the tiniest features of anything humanity can mass-produce. Up until recently, 14nm was the smallest that people could consistently create in the nanoscale, now it's 7nm, and CPUs are the driving force and the first use for that. We're soon about to reach the limits of the nanoscale and quantum effects start applying, which is a legitimate concern. For instance, these chips are so tiny that in the 7nm process transistors have to be slightly spaced apart because quantum tunneling starts appearing between individual transistors, preventing them from working. Each transistor now has the diameter of 70 hydrogen atoms to put it into perspective..
And back to the CPU market, yeah, 7nm is a huge leap. There was a stop-gap Samsung 10nm process in mobile, that was not suitable for high power chips, but flagship phones made within the last 15 months or so had 10nm chips.
In the desktop space, there's the 7nm process pioneered by TSMC in Taiwan that AMD now began to use and there's also the Intel 10nm process that Intel's struggling with. The Intel 10nm process was supposed to hit the market in 2016, but most chips made using it had defects, so they have been trying to fix it and delaying it by another year ever since, becoming stuck on the 14nm process. Even if Intel makes the 10nm process work in Q4 2019 (which is their current promise) it will still be behind the AMD/TSMC 7nm process, and Intel won't have a better process for many, many years. In the meantime, AMD is eye-ing a 5nm process as something to jump to in several years. For now, the upcoming 7nm process for AMD and the 10nm process for Intel will be here to stay a longer while, with no amazing shrinks on the horizon.
So most improvements that we will see between 2019 and 2021-22 will be due to the architecture alone. For instance, Intel's Core architecture is long overdue for a successor, since they perfected it (and depleted any room for upgrades) with Skylake (6th gen). Each Coffee Lake (9th gen) core is essentially just a Skylake core.
Zen for AMD is a new architecture, so there's a plenty of 'low-hanging fruit' improvements that can provide significant performance gains that they can be focusing on in the upcoming years.
And back to the CPU market, yeah, 7nm is a huge leap. There was a stop-gap Samsung 10nm process in mobile, that was not suitable for high power chips, but flagship phones made within the last 15 months or so had 10nm chips.
In the desktop space, there's the 7nm process pioneered by TSMC in Taiwan that AMD now began to use and there's also the Intel 10nm process that Intel's struggling with. The Intel 10nm process was supposed to hit the market in 2016, but most chips made using it had defects, so they have been trying to fix it and delaying it by another year ever since, becoming stuck on the 14nm process. Even if Intel makes the 10nm process work in Q4 2019 (which is their current promise) it will still be behind the AMD/TSMC 7nm process, and Intel won't have a better process for many, many years. In the meantime, AMD is eye-ing a 5nm process as something to jump to in several years. For now, the upcoming 7nm process for AMD and the 10nm process for Intel will be here to stay a longer while, with no amazing shrinks on the horizon.
So most improvements that we will see between 2019 and 2021-22 will be due to the architecture alone. For instance, Intel's Core architecture is long overdue for a successor, since they perfected it (and depleted any room for upgrades) with Skylake (6th gen). Each Coffee Lake (9th gen) core is essentially just a Skylake core.
Zen for AMD is a new architecture, so there's a plenty of 'low-hanging fruit' improvements that can provide significant performance gains that they can be focusing on in the upcoming years.
Last edited:
Well, I was joking about One and mocking those that were predicting big things for it when it was announced, only for Google to Google it up. Out of all the current One devices, I think only the Nokia has been received well by the community while the rest are just bargain phones but still priced poorly in the US. I heard internationally, the Moto is priced very well for its specs.
As for the mobile GPU, despite not being a priority nor not having the same power as their desktop counterparts, will we still see mobile AMD GPUs tout similar benefits and gains as the desktop GPUs? From what I understand, the best mobile GPU is still NVIDIA's lineup of the 1080 and 1070. AMD is much further behind, even with the 560 or 555/560x. I don't even think those are the best And mobile GPUs as AMD makes Vega Ms, right?
So do we see AMD at least make an effort to catch up to NVIDIA in the mobile market or is it a lost cause? I'd only be concerned because Apple is all in on AMD GPUs for their notebooks that have dedicated GPUs. I get that NVIDIA may be the top for gaming, mobile or desktop, but do GPUs vary depending on their usage? If Apple sees their Macs as "not-for-gaming," are they still using AMD cards because they can at least be useful for creators of media based on AMD's structure/benefits? Or is it a very black and white thing where the most powerful GPU is the best for everything GPU-related, gaming or otherwise?
Intel's is in full damage control mode:
https://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/124034-intel-schedules-forward-looking-architecture-event-11th-dec/
Generally speaking, Nvidia GPUs are focused on gaming performance, while AMD GPUs are better at compute performance but they can also game well. AMD's clients are split between data center/AI/GPU computation and gaming (they use the same chips in Sony and Microsoft consoles). Nvidia currently has the more efficient architecture for pure gaming. The jump to 7nm is a big deal, because Nvidia just released a brand new 12nm series of cards which are really relatively weak, focusing on new features rather than increasing performance. This is a chance for AMD, especially since they're also finalizing a new gaming architecture that will likely end up in PlayStation 5 and mobile devices as well to some extent.
Mobile GPUs are generally orders of magnitude weaker than the desktop parts, but allow for some low-resolution gaming. If you have a mobile version of the Nvidia 1070 or 1080 GPUs, you can game really well. They are the best mobile GPUs, but they are only installed in gaming laptops due to how much heat they generate and how much power they require. AMD doesn't do anything like that yet - they are focusing on the best GPUs you can install in a laptop on the same chip as the CPU, and that's what their current chips are excelling at.
https://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/124034-intel-schedules-forward-looking-architecture-event-11th-dec/
Generally speaking, Nvidia GPUs are focused on gaming performance, while AMD GPUs are better at compute performance but they can also game well. AMD's clients are split between data center/AI/GPU computation and gaming (they use the same chips in Sony and Microsoft consoles). Nvidia currently has the more efficient architecture for pure gaming. The jump to 7nm is a big deal, because Nvidia just released a brand new 12nm series of cards which are really relatively weak, focusing on new features rather than increasing performance. This is a chance for AMD, especially since they're also finalizing a new gaming architecture that will likely end up in PlayStation 5 and mobile devices as well to some extent.
Mobile GPUs are generally orders of magnitude weaker than the desktop parts, but allow for some low-resolution gaming. If you have a mobile version of the Nvidia 1070 or 1080 GPUs, you can game really well. They are the best mobile GPUs, but they are only installed in gaming laptops due to how much heat they generate and how much power they require. AMD doesn't do anything like that yet - they are focusing on the best GPUs you can install in a laptop on the same chip as the CPU, and that's what their current chips are excelling at.
I see. So there is a big difference between the best mobile AMD and best mobile Nvidia, it seems.
Even though I'm not seriously considering an eGPU just as yet, I'm starting to see more and more people with macOS using the 1080tis as their setups. I had read ever since Apple introduced eGPU compatibility, that Nvidia cards would cause issues on macOS and that some extra work would need to be done to ensure it works without a hitch. But now I'm seeing so many setups of people with 2016 MBPs, and newer, using 1080 and 1070s. This comes at a time when I see Vega 64 cards now in the $400 price range and people are still suggesting Nvidia cards.
Even though my purchase may or may not be over a year away, it makes me wonder if Apple will just stop fucking around and make it easier to use Nvidia cards without having to do extra steps in the installation. They apparently have the superior cards and even if macOS still lags far behind in gaming, it will at least open some more doors for the users to play the games they are able to play on macOS at higher settings. Or just run them using Boot Camp, which is what I'd eventually do.
Since you own a newer Galaxy device (8, right?), have you found something that allows for dark mode almost universally on your phone, including apps? I came across this article: https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/8/18076502/google-dark-mode-android-battery-life
I have been using an app called Pixel Filter to reduce brightness, but I can't speak to how well it works. I've been using it for about six months, I think, and it really seems to be similar to the native brightness settings. But I got it at the recommendation of a thread on the Android sub and if I remember correctly, it reduces the brightness of the black/dark pixels on your screen. So the brightness of the pixels showing black or darker colors are further reduced in intensity.
But that's not the same as a dark mode. It looks like shit on the Samsung Browser, so I don't use it there. I use it on Tweetings and on Google News, but that's about it. Are there any Samsung Themes that promote a dark mode in other apps, or at least in the system settings and other TouchWiz menus?
I've got the S8 and surely you can find some dark themes, but they won't affect how the apps look. I don't think there's currently any way to actually alter the UI of all apps with an external app or toggle. The app designers have to integrate dark modes into their apps.
As far as mobile GPUs go, best is very relative. There aren't any mobile GPUs from AMD at the moment the way Nvidia does them (a separate, large chip requiring separate cooling, its own memory etc.). AMD mobile GPUs are tiny and designed to be included together with the CPU (on the same chip). AMD mobile GPUs are ultra-low-power, can be installed in slim, low power laptops, tablets, ultrabooks etc and they are much faster than Intel's in pretty much the same size and power envelope. Basically, they could be installed in the Microsoft Surface and would provide about twice as good gaming performance as the current Intel chips that Microsoft is using at the moment.
The Nvidia mobile GPUs are high-power/high-heat monsters installed as separate chips in laptops that have enough space for the cooling and are mostly stationary due to the power needs. If absolute gaming performance is concerned, surely the mobile Nvidia chips are the way to go. The high-end mobile chips from Nvidia aren't that far off from mid-range discrete GPUs. But to put it into perspective, a mobile GTX 1080 alone uses over 10 times more power than the whole mobile Ryzen 7 chip which includes the CPU+Vega GPU. There is also no Nvidia GPU that is as low power as the AMD mobile GPUs, and all of them require space for a large chip separate from the CPU.
That's a good price, but considering the S10 is around the corner and $520 is not that much below what they were offering it over the last few months I wouldn't say it's that amazing. I remember them doing good boxing day sales, since they know it's their last shot at selling their last gen models before introducing a new line.
As far as mobile GPUs go, best is very relative. There aren't any mobile GPUs from AMD at the moment the way Nvidia does them (a separate, large chip requiring separate cooling, its own memory etc.). AMD mobile GPUs are tiny and designed to be included together with the CPU (on the same chip). AMD mobile GPUs are ultra-low-power, can be installed in slim, low power laptops, tablets, ultrabooks etc and they are much faster than Intel's in pretty much the same size and power envelope. Basically, they could be installed in the Microsoft Surface and would provide about twice as good gaming performance as the current Intel chips that Microsoft is using at the moment.
The Nvidia mobile GPUs are high-power/high-heat monsters installed as separate chips in laptops that have enough space for the cooling and are mostly stationary due to the power needs. If absolute gaming performance is concerned, surely the mobile Nvidia chips are the way to go. The high-end mobile chips from Nvidia aren't that far off from mid-range discrete GPUs. But to put it into perspective, a mobile GTX 1080 alone uses over 10 times more power than the whole mobile Ryzen 7 chip which includes the CPU+Vega GPU. There is also no Nvidia GPU that is as low power as the AMD mobile GPUs, and all of them require space for a large chip separate from the CPU.
That's a good price, but considering the S10 is around the corner and $520 is not that much below what they were offering it over the last few months I wouldn't say it's that amazing. I remember them doing good boxing day sales, since they know it's their last shot at selling their last gen models before introducing a new line.
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm not sure if stacking a student discount (sister's email lol) would knock another 10% off. A rebate site I use is also offering 3% back. So, yay, $15.
About the S10, it looks like there are a lot of rumors already about features it has. I see a headline for it every week. Never bother reading it, though; I'll wait for the official unveiling or when there's actual leaks of the phone before getting hype. So probably by Christmas?
About the S10, it looks like there are a lot of rumors already about features it has. I see a headline for it every week. Never bother reading it, though; I'll wait for the official unveiling or when there's actual leaks of the phone before getting hype. So probably by Christmas?
The early leaks are hit-or-miss. People usually hype up the Galaxy phones to insanity. I believe that 2 years ago they mentioned 16GB of ram, 0 bezels, and some unreal processor. Even when the phone comes out with more RAM and drastically reduced bezels some people still feel disappointed, which is funny. There are always some unrealistic expectations for the Galaxy series. The legit leaks usually start appearing weeks before the final launch and due to the sheer amount of fake leaks it's still hard to tell whether they're really legit.
I expect that we will see a good all-around phone (as always) with more than 1 camera, and a redesign since they already had two generations on the S8 design. It will also be the first Android phone with a new generation of 8nm processors since it's fairly certain which chips the phones will use.
You can tell by the A-series where Samsung is going - for some weird reason their mid-rangers are always the main hints to the direction Samsung takes with the upcoming S-device in terms of appearance and some features. The newest A7 completely changed the design of the back of the phone, placed several cameras next to each other on the side (not in the center) and made the overall shape somewhat less round. I expect the S10 will have a similar design language, except in a more premium style and with a significant bezel shrink. It's still just a guess.
I expect that we will see a good all-around phone (as always) with more than 1 camera, and a redesign since they already had two generations on the S8 design. It will also be the first Android phone with a new generation of 8nm processors since it's fairly certain which chips the phones will use.
You can tell by the A-series where Samsung is going - for some weird reason their mid-rangers are always the main hints to the direction Samsung takes with the upcoming S-device in terms of appearance and some features. The newest A7 completely changed the design of the back of the phone, placed several cameras next to each other on the side (not in the center) and made the overall shape somewhat less round. I expect the S10 will have a similar design language, except in a more premium style and with a significant bezel shrink. It's still just a guess.
Last edited:
That's true, no one is ever happy when any flagship is announced, including myself. We get so caught up in that one, new/different feature and then a flaw gets amplified once it's found upon release and it ruins the phone for us.
Samsung just made this dumb announcement: https://www.xda-developers.com/samsung-will-limit-how-long-you-can-use-free-themes-in-android-pie/
As someone who doesn't use themes ever, that still sounds so anti-consumer, something we rarely think of Samsung relative to other OEMs. S9 users don't have to worry for another 9 months though, lol, when Pie finally makes its way to them.
Samsung just made this dumb announcement: https://www.xda-developers.com/samsung-will-limit-how-long-you-can-use-free-themes-in-android-pie/
As someone who doesn't use themes ever, that still sounds so anti-consumer, something we rarely think of Samsung relative to other OEMs. S9 users don't have to worry for another 9 months though, lol, when Pie finally makes its way to them.
Frankly, at this stage I just wouldn't install Pie. It brings nothing new to the table and will likely slow down the devices.
Samsung's decision is just dumb, regardless - it will just kill their theme store that was already barely used, probably only by people who only bothered because some themes were free.
Samsung's decision is just dumb, regardless - it will just kill their theme store that was already barely used, probably only by people who only bothered because some themes were free.
Last edited:
Spotify had a deal today for 3 months for 99 cents. Nothing special since that deal come around a good bit. But if you did a trial of a family plan, you got a free Home Mini lol
So this is the first time I paid for Spotify and it was 99 cents for 3 months and hopefully the Mini gets here first week of December. Shipped from the Google Store, so my expectations are low on delivery time and such.
Still. A Mini for a penny. I think this one is going to my sister to take to her dorm. First off, it's pink (or "coral") and second we have two at home and I don't think we need a third. So either it goes to the clinic to gather dust on my dad's desk because he doesn't know how to use it properly, or I ship it off with my sister to use at her place. She has an iPhone and no smart devices or appliances but I figured she'd enjoy it for quick lookups of stuff or conversions. Or as an alarm. Something, she'll figure it out.
Also, did you hear about this Pixel 3 Lite that has a headphone jack?
So this is the first time I paid for Spotify and it was 99 cents for 3 months and hopefully the Mini gets here first week of December. Shipped from the Google Store, so my expectations are low on delivery time and such.
Still. A Mini for a penny. I think this one is going to my sister to take to her dorm. First off, it's pink (or "coral") and second we have two at home and I don't think we need a third. So either it goes to the clinic to gather dust on my dad's desk because he doesn't know how to use it properly, or I ship it off with my sister to use at her place. She has an iPhone and no smart devices or appliances but I figured she'd enjoy it for quick lookups of stuff or conversions. Or as an alarm. Something, she'll figure it out.
Also, did you hear about this Pixel 3 Lite that has a headphone jack?
I checked out the alleged leaks and it looks like a really low-end smartphone.
It actually reminded me of what I wanted to mention about the new iPhones. Did you play with them? I checked out the iPhone XR at BestBuy and was really surprised at how cheap, plasticky and bulky it feels. It just feels wrong in the hand. The display is probably the worst Apple has ever used, and the thick bezel around the screen looks really bad, which just work to amplify that impression.
While the specs don't convey that at all, the phones don't feel well built, and they surely don't feel like high-end devices. It certainly wasn't the case with the previous iPhones. Heck, even the lock screen button feels somehow.. plasticky? I thought it's just the Xr, so I checked the Xs and the Xs Max and the feeling was pretty much the same.
I then asked my girlfriend to check it out and she thought it's some new budget line of iPhones.
Then I noticed the reports that the new iPad is the worst one in terms of built quality so far and the reports of it cracking and bending "like a piece of paper" and I went to check that one out. It indeed feels like it's not a solid build, somehow thin and hollow compared to other tablets, and I was wondering what went wrong at Apple.
If you look at their newest iPhones and iPads next to their older products or the super sleek Galaxy S series, the new Apple products just feel cheap.
It actually reminded me of what I wanted to mention about the new iPhones. Did you play with them? I checked out the iPhone XR at BestBuy and was really surprised at how cheap, plasticky and bulky it feels. It just feels wrong in the hand. The display is probably the worst Apple has ever used, and the thick bezel around the screen looks really bad, which just work to amplify that impression.
While the specs don't convey that at all, the phones don't feel well built, and they surely don't feel like high-end devices. It certainly wasn't the case with the previous iPhones. Heck, even the lock screen button feels somehow.. plasticky? I thought it's just the Xr, so I checked the Xs and the Xs Max and the feeling was pretty much the same.
I then asked my girlfriend to check it out and she thought it's some new budget line of iPhones.
Then I noticed the reports that the new iPad is the worst one in terms of built quality so far and the reports of it cracking and bending "like a piece of paper" and I went to check that one out. It indeed feels like it's not a solid build, somehow thin and hollow compared to other tablets, and I was wondering what went wrong at Apple.
If you look at their newest iPhones and iPads next to their older products or the super sleek Galaxy S series, the new Apple products just feel cheap.
Last edited:
I haven't touched an iOS device newer than the 2017 iPad Pro and the iPhone 7, both of which are in my house. I heard about the bending and cracking issues but commenters seemed to say you'd still have to be irresponsible and rough with the iPad to induce those cracks. I'll have to try it out myself in a store. I don't think I've walked in to a Best Buy or similar electronics store at all this year. Not even the Apple Store. So I had no chance to play with newer devices.
By now there are videos of people just pushing the iPad with their thumb in the middle and it cracking in half. Sure, some cheaper, large tablets bend when you press hard enough or crack when you use full force, but the problem seems to be how little effort it takes to crack the new iPad in half. While most people wouldn't accidentally crack it in their hands, imagine it getting hit in the backpack or something. The reports seem to all claim that the build quality is poor and that it actually takes little force to break it.
I only found that out after googling to see what's up with the new iPhones though. Seriously, check them out, especially the XR when you get the chance. Maybe we've been spoiled with the newer Galaxies and older iPhones, but the XR is the first iPhone that I remember that actually feels like a toy.
I only found that out after googling to see what's up with the new iPhones though. Seriously, check them out, especially the XR when you get the chance. Maybe we've been spoiled with the newer Galaxies and older iPhones, but the XR is the first iPhone that I remember that actually feels like a toy.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.