Technology Android

[dilla]

I didn't hear about the iOS devices having a security flaw. I did hear about the Intel one, obviously, and I did read that people worried their Macs would take a huge performance hit too. But I thought all PCs running an Intel processor were going to see that performance hit.

Apple has dropped the ball the past few years. Security was one thing they were lauded for, or at least privacy, but in the past few months we've seen a log in bug that allowed people access to a macOS machine and then some other stuff I've kind of forgotten about, but were a big deal. The iPhone battery drama just got worse since battery shortages could keep people with their old phones until March or even April when supply meets demand. It's a mess. And Apple was always revered as a big, secure fortress due to Apple's restrictions for devs and such. Maybe it's been a long time coming and only just got revealed now.

And that brings about talks of Jobs vs Cook and their philosophies in running Apple. Seems like many long-time Apple users are starting to turn on Cook and think he's taking Apple in a different direction from the way Jobs had it. Jobs had plenty of flops under his belt, but Apple was at least consistent under him. Cook has really made Apple a zany company now where the OS has just been mess for computers and mobile devices. Security and design flaws left and right.

We'll see what happens but it's not looking good for Apple right now. They look like any of the other OEMs in terms of reliability and quality.

 

[masta247]

The iOS / MacOS security flaw is due to Meltdown and Spectre. It also affects Apple chips. Apple patched them, but the patches for the older devices result in the performance taking a major, 40% hit. Apparently, to fix the A8 and older chips Apple decided to just completely disable branch prediction in those chips, which is an important part of each processor that affects its performance - without it the processor needs to work much harder and execute more instructions to do the same work. The newer devices are also affected but to a lesser extent, as you don't need to disable branch prediction- just alter the way it's executed to prevent Meltdown exploits. I assume that's what they did in their newer devices, but weren't willing to put that work into older devices.
Intel apparently did a similar thing in their patches - Skylake and newer chips got a much better treatment resulting in smaller performance hits. That's why I said the vulnerability couldn't have come at a better time, as it's so hard to get people to upgrade from the iPad Air 1 and 2, iPhone 6/6s and Sandy Bridge and Haswell processors. This surely helps, while flying under the radar.

 

[dilla]

The log in flaw I was talking about was this one: https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/29/a...urity-update-to-fix-huge-login-security-flaw/

That one had a firmware update within a day or two, but it was still a nasty oversight on behalf of Apple.

I don't think my MBP has gotten an update in a few weeks now from Apple, so I can't say if I've seen a performance hit or not. Right now it seems fine so I'm assuming the fix hasn't been released as yet? I don't use my iPad Air too intensely, but I still do simple things on it, so no gaming or anything, so I doubt I'd notice the issue there.

Intel will get a bad rap, again, with the tech community, but I'm pretty sure the general public will glance over the CEO going to prison for his stock sales and they will still get an Intel powered computer the next time they purchase one. I probably would too.

 

[masta247]

Intel will get a bad rap, again, with the tech community, but I'm pretty sure the general public will glance over the CEO going to prison for his stock sales and they will still get an Intel powered computer the next time they purchase one. I probably would too.

Yeah, but why? Is it because of laptops which only come with Intel processors?

At this point AMD proved to have higher quality, faster, cooler, slightly cheaper and also as it turns out much safer chips. It's really interesting how things can influence purchasing decisions. I can understand that a person might want a particular laptop and it only comes with Intel chips, but people also still build desktop computers with Intel chips (although much less so since Ryzen is out).

Sometimes I see people on reddit going against the general advice and building Intel computers justifying it with "I'd rather have Intel". I don't think I understand where that kind of mentaility is coming from, apart from Intel's years of discrediting AMD. AMD is in all regards an equal to Intel. Sure, they have less money and only make chips, but they do that damn well, and these days they are making better ones than Intel. Even in terms of technologies, AMD is licensing more technologies to Intel than the other way around. The underlying modern 64-bit processor architecture, hyperthreading and many others are all AMD inventions that Intel pays AMD to be able to use even. The Core architecture, the i7s and the concept of having more threads than physical cores wouldn't exist if Intel wasn't allowed to use AMD technology. AMD and Intel were both simply IBM contractors, with AMD being the preferred one by IBM and Microsoft back in the days. Both companies were historically going head to head and AMD had the higher performing chips more often than Intel did.
Additionally Intel chips use cheap thermal compound in their chips while AMD uses indium solder, making their chips more stable, cooler and longer lasting. They are also user friendly so in a desktop you can just swap in the newest chips for years into the same computer, while Intel locks them every 1-2 generations so you have to replace the whole thing just to have a newer processor. It feels like AMD is that company that does everything right and goes out of their way to please everyone to get hit back with prejudice even if they have an all around better product.

It doesn't even help that AMD chips are widely praised in the tech media and reviews, usually presented as the better alternative and that Ryzen 2 is around the corner now, being even more ahead of Intel in pretty much all regards:
http://www.techradar.com/news/amd-r...e-smallest-and-fastest-desktop-processors-yet

 

[dilla]

Yeah, but why? Is it because of laptops which only come with Intel processors?

At this point AMD proved to have higher quality, faster, cooler, slightly cheaper and also as it turns out much safer chips. It's really interesting how things can influence purchasing decisions. I can understand that a person might want a particular laptop and it only comes with Intel chips, but people also still build desktop computers with Intel chips (although much less so since Ryzen is out).

Sometimes I see people on reddit going against the general advice and building Intel computers justifying it with "I'd rather have Intel". I don't think I understand where that kind of mentaility is coming from, apart from Intel's years of discrediting AMD. AMD is in all regards an equal to Intel. Sure, they have less money and only make chips, but they do that damn well, and these days they are making better ones than Intel. Even in terms of technologies, AMD is licensing more technologies to Intel than the other way around. The underlying modern 64-bit processor architecture, hyperthreading and many others are all AMD inventions that Intel pays AMD to be able to use even. The Core architecture, the i7s and the concept of having more threads than physical cores wouldn't exist if Intel wasn't allowed to use AMD technology. AMD and Intel were both simply IBM contractors, with AMD being the preferred one by IBM and Microsoft back in the days. Both companies were historically going head to head and AMD had the higher performing chips more often than Intel did.
Additionally Intel chips use cheap thermal compound in their chips while AMD uses indium solder, making their chips more stable, cooler and longer lasting. They are also user friendly so in a desktop you can just swap in the newest chips for years into the same computer, while Intel locks them every 1-2 generations so you have to replace the whole thing just to have a newer processor. It feels like AMD is that company that does everything right and goes out of their way to please everyone to get hit back with prejudice even if they have an all around better product.

It doesn't even help that AMD chips are widely praised in the tech media and reviews, usually presented as the better alternative and that Ryzen 2 is around the corner now, being even more ahead of Intel in pretty much all regards:
http://www.techradar.com/news/amd-r...e-smallest-and-fastest-desktop-processors-yet

Marketing? I've never seen AMD ads on TV. Maybe in a tech magazine. Intel? Everyone knows that Intel chime they play in all their ads. People might not know if Intel makes the computer or the processor or the hard drive, but they have been exposed to the brand plenty of times. It doesn't even have to be an Intel commercial; Dell and HP and all other OEMs verbally state the Intel processor inside the machine in their ads. If the ads come from all directions and are pushing Intel, why would the average Joe, who's not going to do the research on pricing vs performance of Intel vs AMD, look outside of Intel? Whatever is on the commercial and used by a big name OEM like Dell or HP must be good enough and everything else is "too new" or "not as good." I'm pretty sure that's why the iPhone has such a stronghold in the US because of all the Apple ads on TV, in magazines, and on billboards. It may be different in Europe, Asia, and even Canada, but people associate the iPhone with being from a premium, reputable, high-class company. Everything else is just "an Android." Samsung may be a slight exception to this but it's still an Android device and is lumped in by many people as being "lower" than an iPhone.

So that's why people will still overlook Intel's shitty tactics and continue to buy their products. They deem the alternatives as inferior because of the marketing done by Intel and OEMs to convince everyone that it's "Intel or bust."

If Apple started using AMD processors, that would be great. But that's not to say my next laptop will be a Mac either. I love the OS and have grown used to it in the past 8 years but that shine is starting to wear off Apple for me with recent security breaches and sloppy releases in the past year or two. And I'm not talking about Spectre or Meltdown as security issues; I mentioned it above that macOS is now increasingly becoming a target for malware, something we thought macOS/OSX just wasn't popular enough to warrant the attention of hackers. Looks like that's starting to change, although it's still probably not as bad as Windows malware.

 

[masta247]

Well, Gizmodo even caught up to the Ryzen hype. I never thought I'd ever see them recommend AMD chips as the faster and cheaper alternative to Intel chips, but since now it happened, then anything is possible now:
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/01/...great-case-for-ditching-intel-based-computers

 

[dilla]

LG scrapped plans for the G7 https://www.androidcentral.com/lg-g7-video

I can't remember the last problem-free phone they released that was still specced like a flagship. I just hear a ton about boot loop issues on several of their recent models, and that's it. That and their gimmicky features that probably don't get used after the first week.

 

[THEV1LL4N]

LG scrapped plans for the G7 https://www.androidcentral.com/lg-g7-video

I can't remember the last problem-free phone they released that was still specced like a flagship. I just hear a ton about boot loop issues on several of their recent models, and that's it. That and their gimmicky features that probably don't get used after the first week.

Read about that rumour last week and I think it's a shame. Problems aside, I thought that the G-series were great. The G7 could have been a great choice and maybe disrupt the market if they had undercut their competitors.

 

[masta247]

Well, the problem with LG is mostly the pricing. Their phones are simply not "top notch", but they wouldn't have to be if they weren't priced like flagships. Unfortunately, they are, and they aren't competitive there. The G6 wasn't a bad phone, but between an outdated chipset, poor camera, features removed depending on region and a so-so LCD screen it had no way to compete at its extremely high price for what it offered, bringing it to the top flagship category. I assume LG is trying to fix it by making the next one better, as opposed to undercutting the competition. I'm not sure how I feel about it, as the market is missing a good value flagship, not another overpriced one, but we shall see.

 

[dilla]

The last LG I owned was a feature phone. Actually, I forgot about the LG EnV that I had prior to making the jump to Android in 2009.

It was a great phone, especially for texts since it had a clamshell keyboard design. Obviously feature phones and smartphones are very different and LG has changed since 07 when I actually bought the phone.

I've never used an LG smartphone, maybe just for a minute or two if there was a demo, so I'm not sure how they are. But I did remember hearing a ton about the boot loop issues on the Sprint and Android subreddits all the time. That was enough to scare me off, especially since no fix was found and when people got their phones replaced via insurance, there was always a risk of it happening again.

Does anyone make affordable flagship-killer phones anymore? I think it was the OnePlus 2 that called itself the flagship killer but I think the price has gone up dramatically since 2014 or so when it was released.

 

[masta247]

The last LG I owned was a feature phone. Actually, I forgot about the LG EnV that I had prior to making the jump to Android in 2009.



It was a great phone, especially for texts since it had a clamshell keyboard design. Obviously feature phones and smartphones are very different and LG has changed since 07 when I actually bought the phone.



I've never used an LG smartphone, maybe just for a minute or two if there was a demo, so I'm not sure how they are. But I did remember hearing a ton about the boot loop issues on the Sprint and Android subreddits all the time. That was enough to scare me off, especially since no fix was found and when people got their phones replaced via insurance, there was always a risk of it happening again.



Does anyone make affordable flagship-killer phones anymore? I think it was the OnePlus 2 that called itself the flagship killer but I think the price has gone up dramatically since 2014 or so when it was released.

That's the problem. Everyone feels like it's fine to charge an arm and a leg for smartphones these days. OnePlus is priced close to the flagship territory these days. The Nexus like doesn't exist, while LG thinks it makes flagships. Even mid-range Samsung series are severely overpriced. At the moment the only company making good value phones is Xiaomi.

LG isn't bad, their phones feel "good value" but not as good as the flagships in pretty much any regards. Their quality is mostly good, except of software, like you said, which is just mediocre. But mostly they are just too expensive.

 

[dilla]

Which company is having issues with the US barring sales of their devices? I think it's Huaweii and specifically with the carrier ATT.

I think I read a headline where the CEO of Huaweii was vocal about his disappointment with the sales ban or the difficulty the US has added to getting a Huaweii phone in the US.

But he 6P was Huaweii, right? Did Google sort of cloak Huaweii's branding when selling it here?

 

[masta247]

Which company is having issues with the US barring sales of their devices? I think it's Huaweii and specifically with the carrier ATT.



I think I read a headline where the CEO of Huaweii was vocal about his disappointment with the sales ban or the difficulty the US has added to getting a Huaweii phone in the US.



But he 6P was Huaweii, right? Did Google sort of cloak Huaweii's branding when selling it here?

The 6P was introduced to the US and sold by Google. Google paid Huawei for manufacturing them as their OEM. I believe Huawei has trouble selling their phones in the US as themselves.

They've conquered Europe by now, but personally, I'm not a fan of their phones.
Their profit margins are quite high, as they started by selling cheap and were periodically hiking up the pricing without improving. They're using almost exclusively Chinese tech and making big money doing so. It's more expensive to source from others and combine the best parts for the best possible complete package, and Huaweii strategy is to build everything in-house, but it's a company with long history of really poor quality trying to change their image now. Technically the result isn't great but also isn't bad - they make decent mid-rangers.

 

[masta247]

Man, the new Exynos M3 core is beautiful. Anandtech did a deep dive, and it's perhaps the best designed ARM CPU core yet, at least on paper.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12361/samsung-exynos-m3-architecture

Sure, it will take a hit to power drain, but if it isn't crazy then the performance increase (and thus still efficiency) will be insane. The guy in the analysis is wondering how on earth will they release it alongside the now much weaker Snapdragon 845 for the US - the new Exynos core is a powerhouse giant compared to the A75 core the 845 will use. Then I started suspecting that there is a chance that they won't. Meizu just released a phone with a mid-range Exynos chip that already has a CDMA modem built-in, it would be extremely interesting (and awesome) if Samsung ditches Qualcomm completely, as the US market and the Galaxy S and Note series there are the only reasons Samsung had to hold back and use Qualcomm processors due to the CDMA modems which pretty much nobody else made.

The link to the Meizu with a CDMA-enabled Exynos chip:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12331/meizu-announces-m6s-with-exynos-7872

 

[dilla]

Man, the new Exynos M3 core is beautiful. Anandtech did a deep dive, and it's perhaps the best designed ARM CPU core yet, at least on paper.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12361/samsung-exynos-m3-architecture

Sure, it will take a hit to power drain, but if it isn't crazy then the performance increase (and thus still efficiency) will be insane. The guy in the analysis is wondering how on earth will they release it alongside the now much weaker Snapdragon 845 for the US - the new Exynos core is a powerhouse giant compared to the A75 core the 845 will use. Then I started suspecting that there is a chance that they won't. Meizu just released a phone with a mid-range Exynos chip that already has a CDMA modem built-in, it would be extremely interesting (and awesome) if Samsung ditches Qualcomm completely, as the US market and the Galaxy S and Note series there are the only reasons Samsung had to hold back and use Qualcomm processors due to the CDMA modems which pretty much nobody else made.

The link to the Meizu with a CDMA-enabled Exynos chip:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12331/meizu-announces-m6s-with-exynos-7872

Didn't one of the Galaxy phones have Exynos chipsets in the US? Maybe the S6 or something. Or maybe it was the other way around and the US had one chipset and the International version had an SD. I think it was the S3 because the US variants had more RAM and the International variant had the better processor.

I don't know what Sprint and VZW are doing about CDMA and moving away from it. I heard a few years back there was a big push towards VoLTE or something like that and it would fix the issue of having different phones in the US than internationally. I don't know how far along that is or CDMA carriers here have any plans to eventually faze out CDMA so that the US can enjoy a proper phone that's not hampered by radio type.

I think a lot of US users on the S7 subreddit opted to buy the international version of the S7 with the Exynos in it. I don't think we can do that for CDMA carriers but if I were on ATT or T-Mobile, that certainly would be an option. I think that does affect warranty, though, since the Exynos is not officially sold in the US even to GSM carriers. Also I used to read threads on that sub for users of the Exynos version in the US that were not getting updates, either OS updates or security updates. I'd hate to have to deal with that nonsense. But to be honest, I bungled up a factory reset on my S7 about a year ago while on the Nougat beta, prior to its US S7 variant release and I am still on the Nougat beta now lol. I manually install security updates from APK Mirror or something, but my security updates version in the About Phone section in Settings still has me on December 2016 security policies. I don't know how bad that is, but I'm stuck in no-man's-land right now because even my carrier doesn't recognize my current firmware version so an OTA update request says I'm on the latest version and connection to my computer to update manually with Samsung's Kies, or whatever it's called now, says no updates available either.

I'd have to flash using ODIN, which doesn't exist for macOS, and flash the latest OS. I'm not too worried about it because the beta had a bug that allowed me to use HotSpot features without subscribing to a hot spot plan via Sprint and I've never been charged for it. Supposedly, this bug was fixed in the final version released by Sprint last February or so. And I only have about another month or two with this phone on contract so if I upgrade, this will be the next user's problem.

 

[masta247]

...

CDMA is an ancient technology. I'm surprised out of all the places it's the US that is the lone wolf that still has carriers using it (the second place in the world that does being unmodernized rural China).
Especially since that historically meant the phone was freaking tied to the network, and there were always also "civilized" carriers there who use proper GSM/3G/LTE system with sim cards and stuff.
You would think the market would completely decimate carriers who stick to CDMA, but somehow it works, and because there are users it forces phone makers to add that radio to their phones, which causes them a lot of trouble. But maybe I shouldn't be surprised that you guys don't comply to global standards, as you also still use feet to measure things ;-)

Regardless, for LTE you will need a SIM card, as there is no LTE based on CDMA anymore (thank God). Your phone needs a CDMA modem just for 2G and 3G on a CDMA network, as that's when its development stopped.

It was the S6 that only had an Exynos chip, but it also had an external modem that was not a part of the chipset. Because the Snapdragon 810 was a horrible chip, Samsung had to do it, despite it being inefficient to use an external modem compared to having a modem on chipset, not to mention it takes extra space. Until last year Qualcomm was the only OEM that integrated CDMA modem onto their chips, that's why Samsung used the Qualcomm chips in the US, as Exynos chips only had the GSM modem built in, and Samsung didn't want to waste space and power by including just a separate CDMA modem - it was easier just to replace their Exynos with the Qualcomm package in the US, and downclock the Exynos to make them perform in a similar fashion.
That's why it's exciting that an Exynos chip with a built-in CDMA modem popped up. Especially knowing the new flagship Exynos is a beast compared to the newest Qualcomm chip. I hope that again Samsung will ditch the Qualcomm chip for the S9 and just use Exynos with a built in modem that includes CDMA so everyone is happy. If they do that for the S9, that would mean the S9 would also have no competition, as the second best chip (the Snapdragon 845) will be much slower (even though it will still be a huge upgrade over the 835).

 

[masta247]

Besides, Qualcomm is an asshole, basically copying Intel's road to "success":
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/eu-fines-qualcomm-billion-euro,news-57783.html

 

[dilla]

CDMA is an ancient technology. I'm surprised out of all the places it's the US that is the lone wolf that still has carriers using it (the second place in the world that does being unmodernized rural China).
Especially since that historically meant the phone was freaking tied to the network, and there were always also "civilized" carriers there who use proper GSM/3G/LTE system with sim cards and stuff.
You would think the market would completely decimate carriers who stick to CDMA, but somehow it works, and because there are users it forces phone makers to add that radio to their phones, which causes them a lot of trouble. But maybe I shouldn't be surprised that you guys don't comply to global standards, as you also still use feet to measure things ;-)

Regardless, for LTE you will need a SIM card, as there is no LTE based on CDMA anymore (thank God). Your phone needs a CDMA modem just for 2G and 3G on a CDMA network, as that's when its development stopped.

It was the S6 that only had an Exynos chip, but it also had an external modem that was not a part of the chipset. Because the Snapdragon 810 was a horrible chip, Samsung had to do it, despite it being inefficient to use an external modem compared to having a modem on chipset, not to mention it takes extra space. Until last year Qualcomm was the only OEM that integrated CDMA modem onto their chips, that's why Samsung used the Qualcomm chips in the US, as Exynos chips only had the GSM modem built in, and Samsung didn't want to waste space and power by including just a separate CDMA modem - it was easier just to replace their Exynos with the Qualcomm package in the US, and downclock the Exynos to make them perform in a similar fashion.
That's why it's exciting that an Exynos chip with a built-in CDMA modem popped up. Especially knowing the new flagship Exynos is a beast compared to the newest Qualcomm chip. I hope that again Samsung will ditch the Qualcomm chip for the S9 and just use Exynos with a built in modem that includes CDMA so everyone is happy. If they do that for the S9, that would mean the S9 would also have no competition, as the second best chip (the Snapdragon 845) will be much slower (even though it will still be a huge upgrade over the 835).

Oooh, I must have misread what you said earlier about Exynos being bundled with CDMA. That would be a great thing for the US users, like me, who are on a CDMA carrier. With the S7, the Exynos/International variant seems to have slightly better performance and much better battery life.

I think CDMA has stuck around for so long in the US because VZW is the biggest carrier here and they're CDMA. ATT and TMo are the GSMs here and Sprint is struggling along as the other CDMA. I thought I had read the VoLTE was going to be the demise of CDMA but I'm not sure which carriers are supporting it, if any, and how long it will take to transition from that.

 

[dilla]

Man, I love upgrading my tech but as nice as the S9 looks, I'm having second thoughts about upgrading.

https://venturebeat.com/2018/01/26/these-are-the-samsung-galaxy-s9-and-s9/

Again, looks nice but until the major details come out and we know the main, differentiating features from the S8 and Note 8, this doesn't seem like all that big of an upgrade.

Nothing else I want to upgrade to over the S9, though, so I'd likely just wait until the Note 9 or see if we can switch carriers in a few months and look to bringing our own device.

 

[masta247]

Man, I love upgrading my tech but as nice as the S9 looks, I'm having second thoughts about upgrading.



https://venturebeat.com/2018/01/26/these-are-the-samsung-galaxy-s9-and-s9/



Again, looks nice but until the major details come out and we know the main, differentiating features from the S8 and Note 8, this doesn't seem like all that big of an upgrade.



Nothing else I want to upgrade to over the S9, though, so I'd likely just wait until the Note 9 or see if we can switch carriers in a few months and look to bringing our own device.

It looks pretty much the same as the S8, but that was quite expected. I'm mostly bummed out about the fingeprint scanner at the back again. I don't care about the stereo speakers or slowmo or other gimmicks I simply wouldn't even use once.
But, they are really touting the camera in the teaser. I'm looking forward to finding out what it brings. If it improves on the sensor tech significantly, and the chipset is the fabled Exynos, that could make its internals a big upgrade. We will see, but this time the unveiling will be less exciting (I wonder how will they try to sell it though) than the first reviews which will really show how upgrade-worthy it is.

I know this might be silly, but apart from the fact that the upgrades were not big but the price was too high I didn't get the S8 because I'm not a fan of the curved edges. I really wish Samsung stuck to flat screen on at least one flagship model. I tried the S6 and S7 edge and I simply didn't like it. That's the only reason I have the non-edge version.