Technology Android

[masta247]

More stuff on it: https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/24/16519530/google-pixel-2xl-screen-issues-deep-and-unfixable?utm_campaign=theverge&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter



Talks about Google's image over the years with its phones and how this is just another bump in the road for them.

Yeah Samsung hardware is really top notch these days. They went through their issues very early on and now offer very polished products. I don't think there's anyone that can come close in terms of displays.

Regarding the article, to me it points out better than anything how people immediately perceived the Pixel phones as something of highest quality. Because I didn't see them that way, it is interesting. Google just made their first Pixel phone last year, second series this year, and they are essentially repurposed, OEM, ok-quality phones with great cameras and semi-amateur-ish designs being the custom features. Maybe it's the price, maybe it's Google branding that made it, but it's funny how high people's expectations must have been. I don't think this burn-in fuck up is something out of the ordinary. But I also thought that the Pixels are just ok-Android phones, basically Nexus phones that are also overpriced.
Everyone's acting like it was Android's greatest quality series now, like "how could this happen". I don't think people would lose their minds as much if it happened to a LG V30, which the Pixel 2 essentially is, or any maker's Nexus phone. It's not like Google suddenly started making their hardware - the phones still are not really made by Google, just branded. Such things also happened to OnePlus and LG before, and it was mostly just news popping up on XDA and such.
The article also shows that Google almost pulled off the Pixel project without anybody noticing that they're bluffing about having experience in making quality phones, while raking in premium profits compared to the Nexus project which this really kind of is.

 

[dilla]

Yeah it becomes and issue when Google attaches its name to it and they are the creators of the OS that Android fans use. You'd expect something similar to what Apple has with its iPhone in terms of quality but some times google phones just don't have it. Whatever flaws the iPhone has, it rarely comes down to the quality of the device and instead lack of features, or removal of them. It seems people already know what they're going to hate and love about the iPhone before it's even released. Android phones get the criticism when it's finally released and it usually ends up being a quality/reliability issue.

So expectations are high when Google announces a phone but they're usually plagued with display and battery issues. Assuming most of rAndroid's users are US-based, I still believe that getting access to unlocked devices from OEMs like Xiaomi and carrier restrictions on phones like the OnePlus are a big issue and lock these users in the other more popular OEMs and the issues that come with them. So the Google phones seem like an alternative to those OEMs, despite being made by HTC or LG in recent years.

But it seems that's not the case. And it reflects poorly on Google's choice of who makes their phones. Especially when they're charging as much as they are for a Pixel.

 

[masta247]

Nah, I never expected them to be of higher quality than OEM phones. They have no right to be. They are made by OEMs, and not the best ones at that, with Google's external design and software input, and some customizations. Such arrangements rarely speak of highest quality - which is I assume why Google bought HTC, to be more like Apple and have full control over its product.
The problem there is Google's lack of recent expertise in the field, and HTC having lost people who were able to create quality phones, so while the move was highly questionable, to be fair it's not like there was any other phone company that was up for sale, and Google is making large profit margins on the few Pixels it manages to sell so it's trying to make it work.
Still, I expect the Pixel phones to be either better in two or three generations after Google figures out how to do things with its new phone division, or will fail if it doesn't. At the moment Pixel phones are way too niche to make money that would justify buying HTC's phone division, no matter how cheap it was.

 

[dilla]

Samsung being a troll lol

Yeah, I didn't think you'd be one to assume it was the best hardware. I did but at some point, maybe around the N4, I realized that it was kind of crap hardware but people jizzed themselves over the true Android/Google experience that they just blindly went with it.

What makes you think the Pixels will get better? How are they different from the Nexus devices, which have been out since late-2009, if you assume the Nexus One to be the first one, and not the G1? That's 9 years, almost, of time to perfect a phone of theirs.

 

[masta247]

The Nexus phones were amazing value. Sure, they were average-quality phones, but the Nexus 5 was 249$ for bleeding edge hardware, ahead of the game.
With the Pixels, Google is taking the same average-quality hardware into phones that aren't ahead of the game and charges large money for. On paper it seems like a concept doomed to fail, but a lot of people received the Pixels well, and why I believe their quality might improve is:
1. It has to, for the price they're asking for people will soon start calling their bluff
2. They bought the HTC's phone division, so they will have everything under one roof now. They never manufactured a phone before, now will be able to do so, risk being lack of Google's experience in doing so. From this perspective, they are yet to release their first ever phone. All previous ones were made by experienced companies that did it themselves with Google being the annoying guy on the backseat telling the OEM what customizations to already tried and tested device they want, and then stamping their logo on it.

I thought things might go better for Google in the future, but then I saw this PR nightmare:
https://www.gsmarena.com/google_sta...cking_sound_issue_with_pixel_2-news-27903.php
lmao, I'm sure they compared it to the V30, where the panels came from. Anyways, apparently case closed, and on to the next issue:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...sue-a-high-pitched-whine-and-clicking-noises/

I guess not only the issues themselves, but how they communicated about them will follow them for a while. If it was Samsung, they'd do a recall or allow people to return their device for a new one. Those people got a burn-in within the first month (!) of using the phone, Google thinks it's normal, and it's not like it's going to go away, only going to get worse.

 

[masta247]

And in 'AMD does awesome things year' they just released the fabled mobile chip based on the Ryzen CPU and Vega graphics.. and.. well, not only do we have the new, best performing and most efficient mobile chip that outperforms the newest 8th gen Intel chip (that doubled the core count in anticipation of those AMD's mobile chips), does so at the exact same power level as Intel, but.. just read below by how much! It's the first time in history that AMD is dominating in mobile chips, and they will for a while now as Intel's newest that it beats didn't even reach consumer devices yet.
Everyone expected these chips to be competitive, but goddamn, now I'm very pleasantly surprised, as this has to be the biggest generational performance increase I've ever seen in the low-power CPU space.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/26/amd-ryzen-mobile-radeon-vega/

AMD also announced a few intriguing stats: The new chips pack in 200 percent more CPU speed and 128 percent more graphics performance than the last generation, all while using 58 percent less power. That's the result of moving to more efficient architecture on all accounts. Ryzen Mobile shines when it comes to multithreaded performance, in particular. It reached a surprisingly high Cinebench R15 score of 719, while Intel's Core i7-8550U clocked in at 498, and AMD's last-gen chip scored a mere 325. (Single threaded performance barely made a budge in Cinebench, though.)

Even when pitted against Intel's Core i5-7600K -- a powerful desktop chip -- the Ryzen 7 mobile processor won out, reaching 707 compared to Intel's 662 in Cinebench's multithreaded benchmark. That's even more impressive when you consider the Intel chip has a high 91-watt thermal design profile, or TDP, which means its meant to withstand much more voltage. The Ryzen 7's TDP is a mere 15 watts.

As for pure GPU performance, Ryzen Mobile blows away last year's chips, as well as Intel's current integrated graphics. In 3DMark Time Spy, the Ryzen 7 reached a score of 915, while Intel's Core i7-8550U scored just 350. You'd have to combine an Intel chip with NVIDIA's 950M dedicated graphics to get anywhere close.

 

[THEV1LL4N]

And in 'AMD does awesome things year' they just released the fabled mobile chip based on the Ryzen CPU and Vega graphics.. and.. well, not only do we have the new, best performing and most efficient mobile chip that outperforms the newest 8th gen Intel chip (that doubled the core count in anticipation of those AMD's mobile chips), does so at the exact same power level as Intel, but.. just read below by how much! It's the first time in history that AMD is dominating in mobile chips, and they will for a while now as Intel's newest that it beats didn't even reach consumer devices yet.
Everyone expected these chips to be competitive, but goddamn, now I'm very pleasantly surprised, as this has to be the biggest generational performance increase I've ever seen in the low-power CPU space.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/26/amd-ryzen-mobile-radeon-vega/

By 'mobile' are we talking laptops, tablets and phones?

 

[dilla]

The Nexus phones were amazing value. Sure, they were average-quality phones, but the Nexus 5 was 249$ for bleeding edge hardware, ahead of the game.
With the Pixels, Google is taking the same average-quality hardware into phones that aren't ahead of the game and charges large money for. On paper it seems like a concept doomed to fail, but a lot of people received the Pixels well, and why I believe their quality might improve is:
1. It has to, for the price they're asking for people will soon start calling their bluff
2. They bought the HTC's phone division, so they will have everything under one roof now. They never manufactured a phone before, now will be able to do so, risk being lack of Google's experience in doing so. From this perspective, they are yet to release their first ever phone. All previous ones were made by experienced companies that did it themselves with Google being the annoying guy on the backseat telling the OEM what customizations to already tried and tested device they want, and then stamping their logo on it.

I thought things might go better for Google in the future, but then I saw this PR nightmare:
https://www.gsmarena.com/google_sta...cking_sound_issue_with_pixel_2-news-27903.php
lmao, I'm sure they compared it to the V30, where the panels came from. Anyways, apparently case closed, and on to the next issue:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...sue-a-high-pitched-whine-and-clicking-noises/

I guess not only the issues themselves, but how they communicated about them will follow them for a while. If it was Samsung, they'd do a recall or allow people to return their device for a new one. Those people got a burn-in within the first month (!) of using the phone, Google thinks it's normal, and it's not like it's going to go away, only going to get worse.

So it's a philosophy issue on the part of Google. The Nexus One was a proper phone because it was the best phone available when it was released. As you mentioned, the rest of the Nexus devices were basically de-skinned versions of another OEM's release. There were 7+ iterations of these Nexus devices and no one called Google out for it. Most people that didn't buy one just saw it for what it was but some other people, "enthusiasts" bought them anyway, telling Google it was OK to pull that shit.

That's the infuriating part. I doubt buying HTC is going to do anything to help their case. HTC won't be making new devices under HTC, right? So it'll be Google telling HTC to make a phone with HTC flaws from the past and just slapping a Google branded sticker on it as a G Phone.

 

[dilla]

And in 'AMD does awesome things year' they just released the fabled mobile chip based on the Ryzen CPU and Vega graphics.. and.. well, not only do we have the new, best performing and most efficient mobile chip that outperforms the newest 8th gen Intel chip (that doubled the core count in anticipation of those AMD's mobile chips), does so at the exact same power level as Intel, but.. just read below by how much! It's the first time in history that AMD is dominating in mobile chips, and they will for a while now as Intel's newest that it beats didn't even reach consumer devices yet.
Everyone expected these chips to be competitive, but goddamn, now I'm very pleasantly surprised, as this has to be the biggest generational performance increase I've ever seen in the low-power CPU space.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/26/amd-ryzen-mobile-radeon-vega/

That'll be interesting to see. I think we're all so far up Intel's butt, even if benchmarks show Ryzen to be better for cheaper than Intel's offerings, we'll still opt for an Intel machine for fear of support/compatibility somehow.

 

[masta247]

By 'mobile' are we talking laptops, tablets and phones?

Laptops, Windows tablets, 2-in-1s. It's a 15W part. Such are installed in everything from the Surface Pro up to ultrabooks and laptops.

That'll be interesting to see. I think we're all so far up Intel's butt, even if benchmarks show Ryzen to be better for cheaper than Intel's offerings, we'll still opt for an Intel machine for fear of support/compatibility somehow.

See, the support and compatibility isn't any worse than Intel. Let's not forget that the 64bit processor tech is AMD's property, and Intel licenses it FROM AMD to make current 64-bit processors run pretty much any current programs. There's no logical reason not to choose the part that simply performs better, it's not like one will run code worse than the other because they both do in exactly the same way. The bigger problem I see is OEMs in bed with Intel. The financial results for Q3 are in and while AMD made 72 million in pure profit, Intel made over a billion, despite AMD snatching Intel's thunder the whole year with Ryzen, and getting back to 35% market share, up from 5% of last year! In Intel's world money buys the market to keep them in a position to milk that market from the money that they use to continue doing so. If they're falling off, one or two anti-consumer moves will get them the extra money to pay off OEMs to stop using competing products and all is right in Intel's world again.
Most people don't even know what processors are installed in their computers, I think it's all about OEMs to choose which processor they will install, and whether having the cheaper and higher performing chip is worth risking the Intel money.

That's the infuriating part. I doubt buying HTC is going to do anything to help their case. HTC won't be making new devices under HTC, right? So it'll be Google telling HTC to make a phone with HTC flaws from the past and just slapping a Google branded sticker on it as a G Phone.

There's some hope that they'll turn HTC's phone division around. HTC was let down by horrible management. Google fell off, but they still have a better shot at saving what's left of HTC. Most of all, Google needs to have phone hardware under their wings to succeed with the Pixel. It's always better to make something yourself and be fully responsible for it, rather than order from a third party. They have one shot at actually delivering on the promise that they're actually already charging for.

 

[THEV1LL4N]

I'd love to see more Chromebook 2 in 1 tablets like the Pixelbook. I'd love to see a midrange market with AMD processors.

Also, I think Google need to unify all of their messaging apps and rebrand the whole thing. That's what they are supposed to be doing with their music subscription service (Google Play Music and YouTube Music). I'd love a free ad-supported tier to Google Music so they can better compete with the likes of Spotify; and Podcasts to compete with other streaming services for content that isn't necessarily music.

I think they might have missed another trick with social. They could have built their own Snapchat and Instagram style platforms. Maybe something like 'YouSnap' (using YouTube Live) and a social feed version of Google Photos.

I'm still yet to try Spotlight Stories and Spaces and see what it's about.

 

[dilla]

See, the support and compatibility isn't any worse than Intel. Let's not forget that the 64bit processor tech is AMD's property, and Intel licenses it FROM AMD to make current 64-bit processors run pretty much any current programs. There's no logical reason not to choose the part that simply performs better, it's not like one will run code worse than the other because they both do in exactly the same way. The bigger problem I see is OEMs in bed with Intel. The financial results for Q3 are in and while AMD made 72 million in pure profit, Intel made over a billion, despite AMD snatching Intel's thunder the whole year with Ryzen, and getting back to 35% market share, up from 5% of last year! In Intel's world money buys the market to keep them in a position to milk that market from the money that they use to continue doing so. If they're falling off, one or two anti-consumer moves will get them the extra money to pay off OEMs to stop using competing products and all is right in Intel's world again.
Most people don't even know what processors are installed in their computers, I think it's all about OEMs to choose which processor they will install, and whether having the cheaper and higher performing chip is worth risking the Intel money.




There's some hope that they'll turn HTC's phone division around. HTC was let down by horrible management. Google fell off, but they still have a better shot at saving what's left of HTC. Most of all, Google needs to have phone hardware under their wings to succeed with the Pixel. It's always better to make something yourself and be fully responsible for it, rather than order from a third party. They have one shot at actually delivering on the promise that they're actually already charging for.

One big OEM in bed with Intel is Apple. And while Apple may not move as much hardware as all Windows OEMs combined, it's tough for casual users to not see Apple as a bigger force than each OEM individually. If someone casually saw that Apple was 100% dedicated to Intel and would not consider AMD (including ditching the AMD GPUs that they use), I feel like it'll control the public's perception on AMD and make people think AMD is inferior because Apple isn't using them. And it makes sense why they would think that because of the presence and influence Apple has in other segments of the tech market, but it would be ill-informed to come to the conclusion that AMD is inferior.

Still, for AMD to go from 5-35% marketshare in one year is huge. That's some serious momentum to have but it of course invites Intel to untuck its slimy tactics it hasn't had to use in over a decade and use those anti-consumer moves again to, at the very least, trip AMD up during its growth spurt.


As for the HTC-Google situation, HTC needed money despite having some nice looking phones. Google has the money, always has, and was looking for an OEM to control the production of its hardware for Google Phones. The problem is what Android needed and that seemed to be innovation and dedication to improving the products, and I'm not sure either Google or HTC has that. Google can spark a fire but can't keep it going for long. It's just good at starting the fires and when one is in danger of burning out, its solution is to start another to keep users' interests. HTC can build the next Google/Pixel device and have it perfectly crafted with no issues. People will buy it, praise it, etc. But what is Google going to say about why people should upgrade from their current phones to the a Pixel 3? Especially to those users with a Pixel 2 with burn in issues (or fear of it happening) and others that avoided either Pixel releases the past two years because they didn't find a compelling reason to upgrade those times? What will warrant spending more on a Google phone, outright, rather than sticking with Samsung or even LG and Moto?

 

[dilla]

Possible leak on that new Razer phone

https://www.reddit.com/r/razer/comments/79rkt5/specs_for_the_upcoming_razer_phone/

Looks real nice. That 120 hz screen sounds like a big selling point. Lots of people praised it on the iPad Pro.

 

[dilla]

The Razer phone looks real nice. http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/1...20hz-displays-phones-need-happen-immediately/

Sucks the120hz is only for gaming. It should be an option like Samsung allows the resolution of the screen to be changed in settings. Or scaling, rather.

 

[dilla]

So the HTC U11+ was supposed to be the Pixel 2 XL.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/2/16598218/google-pixel-2xl-htc-u11-plus-design-plans-change

https://www.blog.google/products/android/welcome-htc-android-one-family/

Maybe this gives people hope for the Pixel 3 lol

Also, someone on Reddit said their Pixel 2 came in the mail but had no OS. https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/7a7stx/finally_got_my_pixel_2_xl_today_only_it_was/

 

[dilla]

Intel and ARM in bed together https://wccftech.com/intel-arm-10nm-22nm-collaboration/

Also, another article said that Windows would start implementing SD chipsets for Win10?

 

[dilla]

So Samsung just beat Samsung lol http://www.displaymate.com/iPhoneX_ShootOut_1a.htm

Users were saying calibration had a big thing to do with it. I don't know what exactly that means but it sounds more like a software vs hardware thing and how OEMs may need to start optimizing the hardware via software instead of just sticking a bigger, better piece of hardware in hand-over-hand upgrades.

 

[dilla]

I might have asked this before because I've wondered for a long time. In dev settings, do you tinker with the stuff like Force GPU Rendering and enabling 4 MSSA, or something like that? Does GPU rendering offer benefits but at the expense of battery life?

 

[masta247]

So Samsung just beat Samsung lol http://www.displaymate.com/iPhoneX_ShootOut_1a.htm



Users were saying calibration had a big thing to do with it. I don't know what exactly that means but it sounds more like a software vs hardware thing and how OEMs may need to start optimizing the hardware via software instead of just sticking a bigger, better piece of hardware in hand-over-hand upgrades.

It's just a newer display. Each generation of Samsung AMOLEDs is better than the previous one. The Note just had the bestest screen ever, previously it was the S8. The differences are very minor these days, but as there's no competition, they just keep on outdoing each other at minor victories. All displays are factory calibrated, but Apple usually goes a little bit more towards 100% realism, while Samsung goes into accurate but pleasant colors. It's a calculated choice, as nobody does editing work on a phone, yet people like to look at things pleasant to the eye. Samsung for their own phones makes them still more accurate than any other OEM, and adjust it just a wee bit so it's capable of displaying colors that truly pop. Since Samsung's displays are capable of displaying significantly more colors than the RGB standard's perfection assumes, why not take advantage of being capable of also showing off more intense colors than anyone else can.

You can have 98% of how the iPhone X was calibrated on the S7 if you go to display settings and change the screen mode to "AMOLED photo". The remaining 2% is being the extra step that Apple went over the previous Samsung displays in terms of accuracy.

The Razer phone looks real nice. http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/11/01/razer-phone-hands-120hz-displays-phones-need-happen-immediately/



Sucks the120hz is only for gaming. It should be an option like Samsung allows the resolution of the screen to be changed in settings. Or scaling, rather.

120hz means much bigger strain on hardware for not that much tangible gain. In reality it is a 120hz display that can do 120fps in games but is capped at 60 frames per second in UI. Each frame per second requires the CPU and GPU to do plenty of additional work, with 60 fps being the sweet spot (console gaming is usually capped at mere 30). Sure, 120hz is an upgrade, but high refresh rate is mainly a hype amongst those PC gamers who chase numbers with no regards to power efficiency. 120hz feels a little smoother than 60hz, but the increase is not really important enough to sacrifice so much power to drive it imho. Not on a phone. Even amongst gamers, this is something that mostly just competitive gamers care about. If you can get smooth 60 frames per second, I don't think anyone would complain. It's the stutters - the brief moments where the frame rates drop that are problematic, and a 120hz display does nothing to combat those.

I might have asked this before because I've wondered for a long time. In dev settings, do you tinker with the stuff like Force GPU Rendering and enabling 4 MSSA, or something like that? Does GPU rendering offer benefits but at the expense of battery life?

By default Android does GPU Rendering on what is beneficial to do GPU rendering on. If you turn it on, you are likely to notice reduced battery life and decreased performance in many 3d games that are designed to spread load between CPU and GPU in the best efficient ways possible. By forcing GPU rendering on a 3d game you are telling the GPU to take over the work that the CPU would otherwise do more efficiently, decreasing its performance.
The only case this is useful is if you have a 2d app that is sluggish due to someone messing it up. Forcing GPU rendering on might make it run more smooth due to your phone brute forcing more performance out of it with its GPU.
But having forced GPU rendering all the time is counter-productive for things that were coded at least pretty much correctly, ie. Android's UI and a vast majority of games and apps.

MSSA will hit your battery big time for no tangible gain in games, and no gain whatsoever outside of them. The only gain is in 3d games that are rendered in low resolutions, it makes them look a little bit less shit (softer, less jagged elements). Those are pretty much rare, super old games. On anything rendered in native resolution, or even 1080p, it is impossible to see aliasing on a 5 inch QHD screen, thus Anti-aliasing is an unnecessary waste of GPU processing power.

 

[dilla]

"You can have 98% of how the iPhone X was calibrated on the S7 if you go to display settings and change the screen mode to "AMOLED photo"

So Adaptive Display doesn't give the best colors and aesthetics? That's what I've had it on for a while, but I'll give Photo a shot. That menu always confused me and Adaptive just sounded like it was the best option to use.

120hz means much bigger strain on hardware for not that much tangible gain. In reality it is a 120hz display that can do 120fps in games but is capped at 60 frames per second in UI. Each frame per second requires the CPU and GPU to do plenty of additional work, with 60 fps being the sweet spot (console gaming is usually capped at mere 30). Sure, 120hz is an upgrade, but high refresh rate is mainly a hype amongst those PC gamers who chase numbers with no regards to power efficiency. 120hz feels a little smoother than 60hz, but the increase is not really important enough to sacrifice so much power to drive it imho. Not on a phone. Even amongst gamers, this is something that mostly just competitive gamers care about. If you can get smooth 60 frames per second, I don't think anyone would complain. It's the stutters - the brief moments where the frame rates drop that are problematic, and a 120hz display does nothing to combat those.

What about in non-gaming situations? I've heard people praise the iPad Pro's 120hz screen. I think Apple named it True Motion, or something like that. They said the benefits were huge in scrolling performance. That they noticed the difference in everyday usage when scrolling through menus or websites in the browser. Everything seemed instantaneous and that the text scrolling was still readable.

By default Android does GPU Rendering on what is beneficial to do GPU rendering on. If you turn it on, you are likely to notice reduced battery life and decreased performance in many 3d games that are designed to spread load between CPU and GPU in the best efficient ways possible. By forcing GPU rendering on a 3d game you are telling the GPU to take over the work that the CPU would otherwise do more efficiently, decreasing its performance.
The only case this is useful is if you have a 2d app that is sluggish due to someone messing it up. Forcing GPU rendering on might make it run more smooth due to your phone brute forcing more performance out of it with its GPU.
But having forced GPU rendering all the time is counter-productive for things that were coded at least pretty much correctly, ie. Android's UI and a vast majority of games and apps.

MSSA will hit your battery big time for no tangible gain in games, and no gain whatsoever outside of them. The only gain is in 3d games that are rendered in low resolutions, it makes them look a little bit less shit (softer, less jagged elements). Those are pretty much rare, super old games. On anything rendered in native resolution, or even 1080p, it is impossible to see aliasing on a 5 inch QHD screen, thus Anti-aliasing is an unnecessary waste of GPU processing power.​

I did the Force Render for 24 hours. Noticed nothing. No performance boost and battery life seemed to be the same. I'll just disable it.