The Android Thread - He;pl - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Inspect Your Gadgets > The Android Thread - He;pl

«‹›2236 »

Centzon Totochtin: Jan 2, 2009; Can't post for 13 days!

the V stands for Five

# ? Jun 26, 2018 22:07

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 16:48

docbeard: Jul 19, 2011

One camera for every month before the phone starts bootlooping.

# ? Jun 26, 2018 22:28

vyst: Aug 25, 2009

Endless Mike posted:

Three on the back, one on front, one facing down for junk shots

Finally a phone that meets my needs

# ? Jun 26, 2018 23:38

Desk Lamp: Jun 30, 2014

Thermopyle posted:

Ok, so... The point I'm making isn't something simplistic like if they introduce Yet Another Customization Y then Security Vulnerability X will be introduced. Because it's not that type of argument, you feeling like your phone is reliable, secure, and consistent has little bearing on my argument. (I'm assuming you haven't the resources to do a deep audit of the OS and hardware or a study of the population of phones like yours.) (Actually, I'm not sure that audit or study is perfectly relevant either)

Feel free to skip the following wall of text if you don't care about software engineering.

Reliability, security, and consistency come from minimizing bugs.

Unfortunately, all software has bugs unless its so simple that a single developer can keep the whole thing in their mind, then it might not have bugs. (Software this simple is basic poo poo like "Hello World")

The absolute best we can do is minimize the quantity and type of bugs. We do this by applying design practices refined over the past half century. Applying these design practices consistently across teams consisting of dozens, hundreds, or thousands of engineers is possibly the biggest challenge in software engineering today (right behind naming things). There are organizations that excel at this practice (relatively speaking...we humans are still objectively terrible at it), there are organizations that do ok at it, there are organizations that know they have a problem and don't know what to do about it, and there are organizations that don't even know its a problem.

I'm not going to say which type of organization Samsung is, because the general gist of this post holds no matter which type of organization they are. If they're an excellent one or a poor one, the results are still there. It's just a matter of degree.

Because this process is so hard, one of the key things leading to increased bug counts is when you involve other developers not part of the organizations practices for managing software complexity. Plugins, extensions, additional layers, hooks...all of these ways to add functionality by other developers are guaranteed to introduce new bugs.

The other thing about bugs is that you don't know about them until they rear their head. Many bugs can live in your code and never be encountered...or they can be encountered all the time, but no one realizes its a bug. Bugs that lead to security vulnerabilities are particularly pernicious because anyone who discovers one has incentives to keep it a secret.

Another thing about bugs is that since all software has bugs, you often can't really tell when one piece of software is worse than another piece of software as an end user. I mean, are you really going to notice that your phone crashes 12 times a year instead of some other hypothetical phone that you don't even own crashing 8 times? That wouldn't even be useful to notice anyway. You'd have to know how often, for example, all S9's crashed vs, for example, all Pixel XLs. The end user is often not in the position to know jack.

A company, when it modifies Android or layers on top of Android is without a doubt adding bugs. It's a law of software engineering. More code means more bugs. If your organization is one of those excellent organizations I mention above, you're adding fewer bugs. If your organization is on the other end of the spectrum and doesn't even understand this general problem...well, you're adding more bugs than the organization on the other end.

Not only does more code mean more bugs, but modified code often means more bugs...and particularly so if you're not the organization that originated the code you're modifying. Even putting aside the relative quality of your engineering practices, your practices will not be the same as the original organization.

So, the problem isn't that Samsung is making your particular device particularly worse on this particular dimension. It's that Samsung, in general, is adding more bugs. It's a law of nature that this is the case.

You won't know about it until you know about it, just like people with exploding phones thought their phones were reliable...until they weren't.

Of course, I don't expect anyone to actually change their phone buying practices because of this. People don't really care about security...thus the reason computing is in the state its in. I am as guilty of this as anyone. Knowing all of this and wanting to put its lessons into practice, I should be using an iPhone.

That's a nice theory and all but it is not the case in reality. In practice, both the Pixel and the Galaxy have their share of bugs, and pretending one is objectively superior to the other "because it must be, guaranteed" is ridiculous. While modifying code always has the possibility of introducing new bugs, it also presents the opportunity to fix bugs and add improvements, it is not an obligatory net negative the way you present it.
You feeling that my phone isn't secure, reliable, and consistent doesn't change the fact that it is, and the insane notion that all mentions of Samsung should be accompanied by dire warnings is downright laughable.
As said before, if you really value security, reliability, and consistency you go for an iPhone. The differences between a Samsung and Google flagship are negligible in either direction.

# ? Jun 27, 2018 01:29

grack: Jan 10, 2012; COACH TOTORO SAY REFEREE CAN BANISH WHISTLE TO LAND OF WIND AND GHOSTS!

vyst posted:

Finally a phone that meets my needs

So the V40 will have a Super Macro mode?

# ? Jun 27, 2018 02:10

sleepwalkers: Dec 7, 2008

EdEddnEddy posted:

Not a OnePlus and well, it is an LG, but I have heard multiple reviews talk about the vibration on the V30(+) being amazing and something everyone wishes was on the P2XL (that and the V30's screen as well but welp.)

One phone I would happily have again would be a remake of my LG G3. The rear power+vol controls (with maybe a fingerprint reader ala V10), the near bezel-less flat screen way back when, and the plastic metalic looking back that allowed perfectly fine wireless charging would be great even today. LG may have a bad rap from the G5 and the whole 808/810 CPU deathclock issue, but they do make some nice devices. The V30+ is downright sweet in person.

Kinda at this point I wish HTC and LG would team up and make like a V30+ with Front facing speakers. LG speakers suck while HTC can't seem to make a flat screened (or OLED screen) phone to save their life anymore.

If I'm not mistaken, the V30's screen is the exact same tech as the V30's, considering LG is the only other manufacturer of 18:9 OLED displays; it's the polarizer that causes the blue tint and not the panel itself. Also the vibration on the Pixel 2 XL (and I assume the smaller 2) is the best I've used on Android. Still nowhere near what Apple uses, but a lot better than the S7/8/Note series, G6, etc.

# ? Jun 27, 2018 02:38

elmer chud: May 18, 2018; (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

grack posted:

So the V40 will have a Super Macro mode?

# ? Jun 27, 2018 02:43

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

bull3964 posted:

It's being reported that the LG V40 will have 5 cameras because if course it will.

nice of them to just go on ahead and include replacements in the retail packaging this time

# ? Jun 27, 2018 02:44

ClassActionFursuit: Mar 15, 2006

Desk Lamp posted:

That's a nice theory and all but it is not the case in reality. In practice, both the Pixel and the Galaxy have their share of bugs, and pretending one is objectively superior to the other "because it must be, guaranteed" is ridiculous. While modifying code always has the possibility of introducing new bugs, it also presents the opportunity to fix bugs and add improvements, it is not an obligatory net negative the way you present it.
You feeling that my phone isn't secure, reliable, and consistent doesn't change the fact that it is, and the insane notion that all mentions of Samsung should be accompanied by dire warnings is downright laughable.
As said before, if you really value security, reliability, and consistency you go for an iPhone. The differences between a Samsung and Google flagship are negligible in either direction.

Given the practices and culture I've read about from people inside Samsung, the types of software bugs and vulnerabilities we've seen in production by Samsung, and the general quality of Samsung software in general, it's not a stretch to condemn them on those terms alone.

Of course though I'd agree with your last paragraph entirely as well. While I'd guess that all of the bugs and vulns present on a Pixel are also on a given Galaxy S and that the inverse is probably not true, the fact remains that neither are particularly secure compared to the iPhone and if any of us cared, we'd use one of those. And since none of us do care, it does seem silly to talk about which one of the turds tastes the best.

# ? Jun 27, 2018 02:52

Thermopyle: Jul 1, 2003; ...the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt. �Bertrand Russell

Desk Lamp posted:

That's a nice theory and all but it is not the case in reality. In practice, both the Pixel and the Galaxy have their share of bugs, and pretending one is objectively superior to the other "because it must be, guaranteed" is ridiculous. While modifying code always has the possibility of introducing new bugs, it also presents the opportunity to fix bugs and add improvements, it is not an obligatory net negative the way you present it.
You feeling that my phone isn't secure, reliable, and consistent doesn't change the fact that it is, and the insane notion that all mentions of Samsung should be accompanied by dire warnings is downright laughable.
As said before, if you really value security, reliability, and consistency you go for an iPhone. The differences between a Samsung and Google flagship are negligible in either direction.

The very point was that both the Pixel and the Galaxy absolutely must have bugs. It's even completely possible for the Pixel to have more bugs than the S9. That's not really relevant to what I said.

And again, my point was not that your phone isn't secure, reliable, and consistent.

Any single instance of modifying existing code by a secondary organization that created that code can increase the quality of said code. Again, not in conflict with my post.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make a subtle point.

Thermopyle fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Jun 27, 2018

# ? Jun 27, 2018 03:54

Internet Explorer: Jun 1, 2005

Google has Project Zero, a group of folks that have found a ton of really significant exploits.

Google was battling state-sponsored actors in 2013 before it was in. They encrypted their entire internal network and have been the ones pushing against the concept of "everything behind the firewall is secure."

Samsung has... something, I'm sure.

# ? Jun 27, 2018 04:07

elmer chud: May 18, 2018; (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Sure but

https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-cia-and-nsa-research-grants-for-mass-surveillance/

quote:

When asked, the biggest technology and communications companies�from Verizon and AT&T to Google, Facebook, and Microsoft�say that they never deliberately and proactively offer up their vast databases on their customers to federal security and law enforcement agencies: They say that they only respond to subpoenas or requests that are filed properly under the terms of the Patriot Act.

But even a cursory glance through recent public records shows that there is a treadmill of constant requests that could undermine the intent behind this privacy promise. According to the data-request records that the companies make available to the public, in the most recent reporting period between 2016 and 2017, local, state and federal government authorities seeking information related to national security, counter-terrorism or criminal concerns issued more than 260,000 subpoenas, court orders, warrants, and other legal requests to Verizon, more than 250,000 such requests to AT&T, and nearly 24,000 subpoenas, search warrants, or court orders to Google. Direct national security or counter-terrorism requests are a small fraction of this overall group of requests, but the Patriot Act legal process has now become so routinized that the companies each have a group of employees who simply take care of the stream of requests.

In this way, the collaboration between the intelligence community and big, commercial science and tech companies has been wildly successful. When national security agencies need to identify and track people and groups, they know where to turn � and do so frequently. That was the goal in the beginning. It has succeeded perhaps more than anyone could have imagined at the time.

# ? Jun 27, 2018 04:16

Internet Explorer: Jun 1, 2005

Now you're talking about privacy and not security. They are different. They were talking about security bugs that allow unauthorized access. You are talking about Google giving authorized access to government agencies.

Problematic, yes. Something I deeply disagree with, yes. But not relevant to the discussion.

# ? Jun 27, 2018 04:29

ClassActionFursuit: Mar 15, 2006

elmer chud posted:

Sure but

https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-cia-and-nsa-research-grants-for-mass-surveillance/

Surveillance of this nature is unpreventable if you want to use a phone and not really germane to the discussion which is about device-level vulnerabilities. Network-level surveillance is obviously completely unavoidable but if the data miners like Google and Facebook turning over what they have to the government is something with which you're uncomfortable, you should be using Apple and avoiding the cloud. That's sort of the tradeoff, you're trading privacy for convenience, and that breach of privacy extends out to the government. It sucks but it's where we are.

Internet Explorer posted:

Google has Project Zero, a group of folks that have found a ton of really significant exploits.

Google was battling state-sponsored actors in 2013 before it was in. They encrypted their entire internal network and have been the ones pushing against the concept of "everything behind the firewall is secure."

Samsung has... something, I'm sure.

P0 is great, obviously, but I feel like as good as Tavis is, he's not going to find every vulnerability in Android and of course every one he does find benefits Samsung every bit as much as it does Google.

# ? Jun 27, 2018 04:31

Internet Explorer: Jun 1, 2005

LastInLine posted:

P0 is great, obviously, but I feel like as good as Tavis is, he's not going to find every vulnerability in Android and of course every one he does find benefits Samsung every bit as much as it does Google.

Sure. But does Samsung have a Project Zero for it's software? No. That's the whole point. They're adding poo poo on that isn't being vetted to the same degree.

# ? Jun 27, 2018 04:33

ClassActionFursuit: Mar 15, 2006

Internet Explorer posted:

Sure. But does Samsung have a Project Zero for it's software? No. That's the whole point. They're adding poo poo on that isn't being vetted to the same degree.

I'm sure they have a QC department (while I'm not making any claims to its efficacy) but P0 isn't really a QC department for Google either as they devote a lot of time to software not internally developed by Google as well as internal software.

It's definitely cool that they have an independent and somewhat adversarial group like that but Google's scale and scope is such that such a group is possible. I wouldn't expect anyone outside of maybe Microsoft or Amazon to be able to undertake such a wide ranging product (and honestly both companies lack the hubris of Google to attempt to police all software for the good of the world).

From what I understand of Samsung's culture, their QC is likely fairly standard in that it's fully devoted to minimizing exposure to embarrassment and liability. They're kind of known for only caring about what's thought of in Korea and have a strong tendency toward reinventing wheels so they can claim to be wheel inventors so you can see how it would lead to their particular areas of blindness and incompetence but I wouldn't say they're necessarily worse than anyone else in the smartphone market except to say that they attempt to do more so they screw up more.

What Desk Lamp said is true in this regard, they've pushed for things Google was slow about because they were required in the market they were selling. Whether or not Knox worked right, it was definitely something that Android had to have in order to enter the BYOD space and Google simply waited too long to introduce it. If Samsung screwed up in its implementation (which they did) it was still necessary to do and while it's a few vulns they added to Android, it's not like LG or Sony was doing any of this necessary work so I have a tough time making GBS threads on Samsung when someone needed to get off their asses and do it.

Man that was a lot of words, sorry.

# ? Jun 27, 2018 05:03

Desk Lamp: Jun 30, 2014

LastInLine posted:

While I'd guess that all of the bugs and vulns present on a Pixel are also on a given Galaxy S and that the inverse is probably not true, the fact remains that neither are particularly secure compared to the iPhone and if any of us cared, we'd use one of those. And since none of us do care, it does seem silly to talk about which one of the turds tastes the best.

In the past couple of months we've discussed Pixel specific bugs regarding bluetooth, wifi, and the display not present on the Galaxy. Bluetooth in particular has been a sore spot for Google's Android which Samsung has had ironed out long ago. Would I recommend against getting a Pixel based on these bugs? Of course not, an equivalent Galaxy device will occasionally get the same kind of bugs in different ways. On both devices the bugs are usually fixed within a reasonable time and one's enjoyment of their device is usually minimally impacted. My whole point is that the Galaxy devices stand right next to the Pixel as the very best Android has on offer. For some reason this is a controversial opinion to have in this thread.

Thermopyle posted:

The very point was that both the Pixel and the Galaxy absolutely must have bugs. It's even completely possible for the Pixel to have more bugs than the S9. That's not really relevant to what I said.

And again, my point was not that your phone isn't secure, reliable, and consistent.

Any single instance of modifying existing code by a secondary organization that created that code can increase the quality of said code. Again, not in conflict with my post.

Isn't it though? You said:

Thermopyle posted:

Like, I agree that Samsung has some nice additions to Android.

The problem is that they come at too high of a cost if you value reliability, security, and consistency.

If you want to make that tradeoff on your personal device, that's your prerogative, but to not surround every mention of Samsung with is irresponsible.

So if it wasn't your point it was at the very least heavily implied. You followed up with:

Thermopyle posted:

...one of the key things leading to increased bug counts is when you involve other developers not part of the organizations practices for managing software complexity. Plugins, extensions, additional layers, hooks...all of these ways to add functionality by other developers are guaranteed to introduce new bugs...

A company, when it modifies Android or layers on top of Android is without a doubt adding bugs. It's a law of software engineering. More code means more bugs. If your organization is one of those excellent organizations I mention above, you're adding fewer bugs. If your organization is on the other end of the spectrum and doesn't even understand this general problem...well, you're adding more bugs than the organization on the other end.

Not only does more code mean more bugs, but modified code often means more bugs...and particularly so if you're not the organization that originated the code you're modifying. Even putting aside the relative quality of your engineering practices, your practices will not be the same as the original organization.

So, the problem isn't that Samsung is making your particular device particularly worse on this particular dimension. It's that Samsung, in general, is adding more bugs. It's a law of nature that this is the case.

You are essentially saying that by running a fork of Android, Samsung phones must be buggier, a law of nature you called it even, and since:

Thermopyle posted:

Reliability, security, and consistency come from minimizing bugs.

We come back to your original point, of people needing to be :siren:

warned about the terrible cost in "reliability, security, and consistency" they pay when choosing a Samsung device, despite the fact that the real world has not shown that to be the case. Could we wake up tomorrow to news of some massive exploit that only affects Galaxy phones? Sure we could, it could happen with any phone. But should we assume that it's a law of nature that this will be the inevitable result? That the net ratio of improvements vs bugs will always be a negative? We have no evidence that says that this would be the case. Parting from the premise that you've made a costly compromise by buying one of the best smartphones available leads to flawed discourse, and is how we end up defending our purchase rather than discussing phones and sharing our enthusiasm for Android, flaws and all.

After all, we all readily admit that Apple already has a far superior solution, but we all stick with Android regardless. To borrow from LastInLine, we're arguing about which turd tastes best when they're simply different shades of brown.

# ? Jun 27, 2018 05:56

incoherent: Apr 24, 2004; 01010100011010000111001
00110100101101100011011
000110010101110010

Why does lenovo insist on shipping their mid-low tier phones without nfc? in 2018?

# ? Jun 27, 2018 07:34

Surprise Giraffe: Apr 30, 2007; 1 Lunar Road
Moon crater
The Moon

I still have no real idea what's so important about the absolute best in phone security. I've just never had a problem with it. Never had ads, never had accounts hacked. I've used a bunch of cafe WiFi or whatever, it all seems fine. Even i f my bank deetz did get stolen you only have to contact your bank and they refund. Backup your photos etc, doesnt matter if adware means you have to wipe the thing. This Samsung hacking meltdown Pixel fans she worried about just doesn't seem to be happening so far as I can tell. Last time I checked googles phones were premium priced for the camera alone from my perspective. And I still don't have an objective idea of why that's so amazing because no ones really interested in providing that and its mostly/all processing anyway.
The most off putting thing is just how repetitively vehement Google fans are about chanting pixels praises.

# ? Jun 27, 2018 07:50

Malloc Voidstar: May 7, 2007; Fuck the cowboys. Unf. Fuck em hard.

incoherent posted:

Why does lenovo insist on shipping their mid-low tier phones without nfc? in 2018?

china uses qr codes for mobile payments

# ? Jun 27, 2018 07:53

Incessant Excess: Aug 15, 2005; Cause of glitch:
Pretentiousness

Don't buy a Lenovo of any tier.

# ? Jun 27, 2018 08:03

FistEnergy: Nov 3, 2000; DAY CREW: WORKING HARD; Fun Shoe

# ? Jun 27, 2018 12:48

Bryter: Nov 6, 2011; but since we are small we may-
uh, we may be the losers

Incessant Excess posted:

Don't buy a Lenovo of any tier.

is the Moto G6 no good?

# ? Jun 27, 2018 13:10

couldcareless: Feb 8, 2009; Spheal used Swagger!

I miss the days of the thread coming together to poo poo on OnePlus

# ? Jun 27, 2018 13:29

FistEnergy: Nov 3, 2000; DAY CREW: WORKING HARD; Fun Shoe

It's aggressively mediocre. It's Fine for the money but you're better off buying one of the new Nokias or a Huawei Mate SE.

# ? Jun 27, 2018 13:30

The Merkinman: Apr 22, 2007; I sell only quality merkins. What is a merkin you ask? Why, it's a wig for your genitals!

https://twitter.com/OnLeaks/status/1011928326922014720
Introducing the ~~Samsung Galaxy S9~~ Google Pixel 3 and ~~Apple iPhone X~~ Google Pixel 3 XL!

The Merkinman fucked around with this message at 13:46 on Jun 27, 2018

# ? Jun 27, 2018 13:44

Doctor Butts: May 21, 2002

FistEnergy posted:

It's aggressively mediocre. It's Fine for the money but you're better off buying one of the new Nokias or a Huawei Mate SE.

And what if you're on Verizon?

# ? Jun 27, 2018 13:46

FistEnergy: Nov 3, 2000; DAY CREW: WORKING HARD; Fun Shoe

Doctor Butts posted:

And what if you're on Verizon?

oops yeah I always forget them. I just assume everyone is on GSM because why wouldn't you be

uhhh I guess get a Moto, I dunno :shrug:

# ? Jun 27, 2018 13:47

Incessant Excess: Aug 15, 2005; Cause of glitch:
Pretentiousness

Why do the Pixel phones always look a year behind?

# ? Jun 27, 2018 13:51

Sir Lemming: Jan 27, 2009; It's a piece of JUNK!

Incessant Excess posted:

Why do the Pixel phones always look a year behind?

Their rear-facing cameras are VERY powerful.

# ? Jun 27, 2018 13:53

bull3964: Nov 18, 2000; DO YOU HEAR THAT? THAT'S THE SOUND OF ME PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK.

With the smaller bezels and more screen real estate, I may actually go back to the normal Pixel 3 this year.

# ? Jun 27, 2018 14:00

Sereri: Sep 30, 2008; awwwrigami

Yeah, I feel better about keeping my interim g5+ for a year longer than originally planned.

However:
Where is my loving Oreo update, Lenovo? :argh:

# ? Jun 27, 2018 14:24

ilkhan: Oct 7, 2004; You'll be sorry you made fun of me when Daddy Donald jails all my posting enemies!

bull3964 posted:

With the smaller bezels and more screen real estate, I may actually go back to the normal Pixel 3 this year.

Thats my plan.

# ? Jun 27, 2018 15:02

Calaveron: Aug 7, 2006

o__o

# ? Jun 27, 2018 15:15

Combat Pretzel: Jun 23, 2004; No, seriously... what kurds?!

Sooooo, I wonder what the Pixel 3 XL will bring, besides the notch no one asked for, the wireless charging they shouldn't have dropped to begin with, and the dual selfie camera for gently caress knows what (hope this doesn't become a trend, woe all the bokeh selfies).

# ? Jun 27, 2018 16:13

FistEnergy: Nov 3, 2000; DAY CREW: WORKING HARD; Fun Shoe

Normal Pixel 3 is definitely on my radar

# ? Jun 27, 2018 16:16

butt dickus: Jul 7, 2007; top ten juiced up coaches
and the top ten juiced up players

Combat Pretzel posted:

the dual selfie camera for gently caress knows what (hope this doesn't become a trend, woe all the bokeh selfies).

3D emojis, duh

# ? Jun 27, 2018 16:19

ThermoPhysical: Dec 26, 2007

Combat Pretzel posted:

Sooooo, I wonder what the Pixel 3 XL will bring, besides the notch no one asked for, the wireless charging they shouldn't have dropped to begin with, and the dual selfie camera for gently caress knows what (hope this doesn't become a trend, woe all the bokeh selfies).

Supposedly they're doing something different with the display on the Pixel 3 XL and the smaller Pixel 3 will probably just roll with the same one from last year or the P2XL's screen or something.

Isn't LG providing the screen for both devices this year?

# ? Jun 27, 2018 16:25

bull3964: Nov 18, 2000; DO YOU HEAR THAT? THAT'S THE SOUND OF ME PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK.

There's honestly little reason to update to ANY of the current flagships if you already have a flagship of at least 2016 vintage.

We are in diminishing returns territory.

ThermoPhysical posted:

Supposedly they're doing something different with the display on the Pixel 3 XL and the smaller Pixel 3 will probably just roll with the same one from last year or the P2XL's screen or something.

Isn't LG providing the screen for both devices this year?

The normal Pixel 3 is quoted at 18:9 5.5" which makes it a display we haven't seen before on any device (P2 XL is 6"). The same can be said for the P3 XL (6.2").

LG is likely the manufacturer of both screens this year as they seem to be doing a custom solution for Google. (Especially given the collaboration on the VR display.) These screens should also come out of a newer gen plant than the ones from the P2 XL.

This is likely a very similar situation that Apple and Samsung had. Google went to LG with a spec to build to. Neither phone appears to be using off the shelf panels.

bull3964 fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Jun 27, 2018

# ? Jun 27, 2018 16:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 16:48

ThermoPhysical: Dec 26, 2007

bull3964 posted:

There's honestly little reason to update to ANY of the current flagships if you already have a flagship if at least 2016 vintage.

We are in diminishing returns territory.

The normal Pixel 3 is quoted at 18:9 5.5" which makes it a display we haven't seen before on any device (P2 XL is 6"). The same can be said for the P3 XL (6.2").

LG is likely the manufacturer of both screens this year as they seem to be doing a custom solution for Google. (Especially given the collaboration on the VR display.) These screens should also come out of a newer gen plant than the ones from the P2 XL.

This is likely a very similar situation that Apple and Samsung had. Google went to LG with a spec to build to. Neither phone appears to be using off the shelf panels.

I'm going for the Pixel 3 XL maybe...if the Pixel 3 isn't to my liking with the size. I'm back to using the Nexus 6 but I missed the size when I had the smaller Pixel 2.

Also didn't Apple and Google both throw money at LG to make better panels so that their respective flagships weren't stuck with mediocre to awful displays at launch? I remember reading that somewhere.

# ? Jun 27, 2018 16:42

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Inspect Your Gadgets > The Android Thread - He;pl

«‹›2236 »