Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Oppo's New Phone Hits 538 PPI

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the how's-your-vision? dept.

Cellphones 217

itwbennett (1594911) writes "Oppo Electronics has taken off the wraps on its first LTE phone, and it packs more technology than most if not all laptops. The Find 7 is a 5.5" phone and is the first to support 2560 x 1440 resolution [538 PPI] (by comparison, the Samsung Galaxy S5 has 441 PPI). 'Another striking and unique feature of the phone is its 2.5GHz quad-core Qualcomm Snapdragon 801 processor,' writes blogger Andy Patrizio. 'This is Qualcomm's first chip to feature its Gobi True 4G LTE World Mode, supporting LTE FDD, LTE TDD, WCDMA, CDMA1x, EV-DO, TD-SCDMA and GSM4. Translation: this phone will work on LTE all over the world.'"

cancel ×

217 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

WTF! No posts?!?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46549679)

This must be a bug! (BTW. Whats LTE?)

Re:WTF! No posts?!?! (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 6 months ago | (#46549737)

LTE = Limited Technical Evaluation

You don't really need to worry about it until the wireless carriers finish evaluating it.

Re:WTF! No posts?!?! (1, Funny)

Hal_Porter (817932) | about 6 months ago | (#46550145)

LTE = Liberation tigers of Tamil Elam.

They used to be a good group, until they sold out.

approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ 1' (3, Insightful)

raymorris (2726007) | about 6 months ago | (#46549683)

It seems current phones like the two mentioned in TFS are approximately the same resolution as our vision. For an adult human, 400-600 is about the limit of what we can detect.

I guess screen resolution is now at the point cameras have been for a few years - any resolution higher than about 4 megapixels is wasted unless the photo is enlarged considerably. (Or one portion is enlarged aka "zoomed in").

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (5, Informative)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 6 months ago | (#46549919)

For an adult human, 400-600 is about the limit of what we can detect.

No.

For most average human adults, the limit is about 300 dpi.

Speaking as a graphic designer with over two decades of experience, there is a reason that graphic designers have always targeted a print resolution of 300 dpi for colour images.

How 400-600 entered the conversation is beyond me. The percentage of people who can visually tell the difference between a 300 dpi output and anything higher than that is very, very small. The number of people who can spot the difference at 400+ is not even a consideration for discussion. I'm sure there are some who can but don't even vaguely think that they in any way represent the norm.

Any manufacturer who targets a screen resolution above about 350 or so is just targeting big numbers for the marketing benefit - the average user will never be able to tell the difference.

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (3, Interesting)

cbhacking (979169) | about 6 months ago | (#46549957)

Sometimes people use their phones closer than 1' from their eyes, especially when trying to see detail (i.e. the times when high resolution helps). With that said, I really don't see any use for 538PPI. That thing has the resolution of my 27" monitor! Yeah, I'd like the monitor's resolution to be higher, I guess, but it's not needed. Meanwhile, that's 4x the resolution of my still-somewhat-large (4.8") phone. Now, I *would* like the phone's resolution to be a bit higher (it's just over 300PPI, but text vanishes into jumbled pixels before it gets too small to read) but most of the time I don't need it and probably wouldn't notice... aside from the higher power draw and worse framerates in games.

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550337)

Sometimes people use their phones closer than 1' from their eyes, especially when trying to see detail (i.e. the times when high resolution helps). With that said, I really don't see any use for 538PPI. That thing has the resolution of my 27" monitor! Yeah, I'd like the monitor's resolution to be higher, I guess, but it's not needed. Meanwhile, that's 4x the resolution of my still-somewhat-large (4.8") phone. Now, I *would* like the phone's resolution to be a bit higher (it's just over 300PPI, but text vanishes into jumbled pixels before it gets too small to read) but most of the time I don't need it and probably wouldn't notice... aside from the higher power draw and worse framerates in games.

I actually feel bad for the technical outsider reading stuff like this describing the latest technology.

They have no fucking idea we're talking about a phone.

Seriously, rewind 10 years, and this reads like a spec sheet for the next COD desktop system.

Utterly fucking ridiculous what manufacturers think we need or asked for in a phone, with resolutions we cannot even see as humans, and dynamic audio range that only a dog could hear.

But hey, let's all feel good about paying hundreds of dollars for tech we can't use, let alone find an application for it.

I look forward when we can get back to manufacturing for purpose instead of fashion.

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550401)

What an asshole.

If this thing had a MS or Apple logo on it, Slashdot wouid be all over it like it was a gift from their gods,

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (0)

davidhoude (1868300) | about 6 months ago | (#46550437)

Go back to your 640x480 crt

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (1)

rasmusbr (2186518) | about 6 months ago | (#46550481)

It's an aside point, but I don't think OpenGL games render in 1920x1080 on phones with that resolution, based on what I can tell by looking at my Nexus 5 it looks like games render in a much lower resolution and use FSAA and other filtering to smooth out the artifacts.

I don't think having a higher res screen would slow down games much, unless the game you're playing chooses it's rendering res based on the screen res rather than on how powerful the GPU is.

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (4, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | about 6 months ago | (#46549989)

It is the pixel angle that makes the difference. 300DPI at two feet away is not the same as 300DPI at six inches. Whether you can see the difference in resolutions has a great deal to do with how you use a device, and how far away you hold it. Print media typically expects to be viewed at arm's length -- about 18 inches. I see many, many people holding their cell phones far closer than that.

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550009)

based on that same train of thought, we should stop procuding any kind of digitally recorded sound with frequencies higher than 22khz as for most average human adults, the sound range is 20hz to 22khz

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550081)

Yes that's right

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (5, Interesting)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 6 months ago | (#46550083)

That is false. You are thinking old people, who with time lose ability to hear higher frequency sounds. Average adults can often hear higher frequencies, and young people can hear even higher ones.

I still remember a case of walking around a certain field in the countryside with an old relative and he was complaining about the fact that there used to be a lot of grasshoppers in this place and now the environmental pollution killed them all since it's all quiet. At the same time, grasshopper noises where everywhere. I didn't have the heart to tell him that it's just his age and his reduced ability to hear higher frequency sounds.

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550119)

In my time, young kid, there were grasshopper rodeos because bulls were smaller and less menacing. A grasshopper left to its own in the fields they would eat cows, children, telephone posts, and whatever crossed its sight.

Now, get off my lawn!

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 6 months ago | (#46550131)

But I have to cut it first sir!

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550339)

Your old sensei was lamenting the loss of young grasshoppers. You were being damned with faint praise, and he did not have the heart to be more direct.

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 6 months ago | (#46550495)

That is false.

What's false? GP's statement was that "for most average human adults, the sound range is 20hz to 22khz."

Is that false?

wrong (1)

tleaf100 (2020038) | about 6 months ago | (#46550089)

most folks older than mid twenties have more like 80/100-2-15 khz. 20-20 is usualy found in the young or those tha have trained their ears and hearing. when young,i could consistently detect 4-6 hz -24-27khz.by 17 that was back to 15hz -21k. by age 26.25h -20khz (compressed air jack hammers and heavy metal gigs did my hearing no good. at age 53.40/90h - 14/17 khz. (two stroke strimmers and agricultural kit did not help) most folk measure lower than they would expect. but is very variable anyway,just likes eyes.

Re:wrong (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550425)

Your message is very hard to read and understand. It omits uppercase letters, has strange gibberish like "53.40/90h - 14/17 khz", and uses "khz" instead of the proper unit "kHz".

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (4, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 6 months ago | (#46550059)

I must be some of those lucky super-humans then because I can clearly see a difference between my old Galaxy S3 (305 PPI) and Nexus 5 (445 PPI). I wear glasses and think I need to go get a new prescription soon, BTW.

Your experience as a graphic designer has mislead you. What you say might be true for print, but not for LCD/AMOLED screens. That's why ePaper displays often have relatively low PPIs but still look like paper - they have real ink blobs in them. It's to do with the slightly fuzzy edges of the spots in print, the slight bleed into the paper etc. smoothing the printed image out. Screens have hard edges to every pixel.

The human eye does not work the way a lot of people seem to think it does. 300 DPI is not some kind of ultimate limit, and printer manufacturers know this which is why they usually interpolate up to at least 600 DPI and most people can tell that it looks better for small text.

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (1)

glasshole (3569269) | about 6 months ago | (#46550483)

AMOLED for sure, since the 'PPI' is slightly misleading.

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 6 months ago | (#46550117)

300dpi for print is actually a lot lower than 300ppi for displays. Each dot for print is, depending on your technology, either black, cyan, magenta or yellow, or one of a very small (typically 4-16) shades of these colours. For a display, you have at least 2^16 shades of colour for each pixel. This is why the output from a 300dpi inkjet looks a lot worse than a 70dpi monitor. For print, you typically use 2400dpi, which comes close to approximating 300ppi.

Personally, I find you hit diminishing returns after about 200ppi. It's easy to tell 70-100ppi apart from 200ppi, but 400ppi is only better if you look really carefully. 600ppi is a marketing gimmick (and will need more frame buffer memory and more CPU power to use, so is likely to drain the battery faster). On the plus side, hopefully this will mean that the 225ppi panels will become cheaper and I'll be able to get a cheap phone with a nice screen...

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 6 months ago | (#46550219)

300dpi for print is actually a lot lower than 300ppi for displays. Each dot for print is, depending on your technology, either black, cyan, magenta or yellow, or one of a very small (typically 4-16) shades of these colours.

You are confusing DPI (image resolution) and LPI (effectively printer resolution). They are not the same thing.

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (1)

Carewolf (581105) | about 6 months ago | (#46550357)

If you look a black and white print, there is no dithering and 600dpi is still clearly better than 300dpi. Try looking at printed text for instance. There is no visual improvement at 1200dpi or higher though, that only matters for dithering as you say.

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550155)

You're talking about static supersampled imagery for 300dpi, not motion video - which has a lot of characteristics w/ respect to motion, frame-rate, relative motion of the display to the eye, and sampling of raw imagery which make ~549dpi produce various visual artifacts at a distance of roughly 20cm.

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | about 6 months ago | (#46550157)

How 400-600 entered the conversation is beyond me. The percentage of people who can visually tell the difference between a 300 dpi output and anything higher than that is very, very small. The number of people who can spot the difference at 400+ is not even a consideration for discussion. I'm sure there are some who can but don't even vaguely think that they in any way represent the norm.

What about all the giant squids browsing the Internet from R'lyeh? They've got eyes the size of dinner plates so their vision must have superb angular resolution?

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (3, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 6 months ago | (#46550375)

Speaking as a graphic designer with over two decades of experience

Anybody who starts a phrase with "Speaking as a...." usually has no clue.

The difference between 300dpi and 600dpi dithered images on monochrome laser printers is easy to see.

there is a reason that graphic designers have always targeted a print resolution of 300 dpi for colour images.

Maybe the problem is with your printers and/or the medium you print on.

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 6 months ago | (#46550393)

Printer resolution (LPI) and image resolution (DPI) are two different things.

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (3, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | about 6 months ago | (#46550381)

That is, of course, why 1200 DPI printers look no better than 300 DPI printers.

If you're BLIND, that is.

Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye @ (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 6 months ago | (#46550407)

You're talking about desktop grade printer resolution which is not the same as commercial grade printer resolution (measured in LPI - lines per inch) and neither are the same as image resolution (DPI) which is a totally different thing.

Industry standard dock. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46549685)

I suppose it's hopeless to push for an industry-standard phone dock so we can attach these to power, monitors, keyboards, storage and mice?

One of these could easly reeplace a desktop computer for 99% of people in the world.

Re:Industry standard dock. (1)

cbhacking (979169) | about 6 months ago | (#46549999)

If it wasn't for the semi-crippled OS, I'd agree. Android with traditional PC peripherals isn't a great experience, either in terms of the OS (things like full-screen-only apps and a swipe-oriented UI) or apps (relatively small finger movements on a touchscreen translate to significant mouse movements on a big display, and many apps will have very poor support for non-touch input).

On the other hand, simply in terms of the hardware, this thing is a more-than-adequate replacement for a PC. Even given the differences in actual operations per clock cycle between Krait ARMv7 chips and something like Core i7 x64 chips, 4x 2.5GHz is a crapload of computing power. 3GB of RAM (presumably because the CPU is still only 32 bit) is a weak spot, and the GPU still really can't compete with desktop GPUs (although it might compare reasonably with Intel's integrated graphics? Which would be fair since it's itself integrated). For most purposes, though, it's a machine with good-to-fantastic specs.

Re:Industry standard dock. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550169)

Still better than Windows 8.

Re:Industry standard dock. (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 6 months ago | (#46550139)

I'd love to see Thunderbolt connections on phones. The connector is just about small enough for a phone and provides DisplayPort and enough PCIe bandwidth for a disk controller and a USB hub. Perhaps someone could come up with a connector that was slightly thinner (and wider) and contained Thunderbolt and power.

Stupid (4, Interesting)

gweihir (88907) | about 6 months ago | (#46549691)

This is a stupid race for the higher number. Unfortunately they will find people that buy this thing because of this completely meaningless "feature". Unless people start carrying around large magnifiers, this will not even be visible in direct comparison.

Give us better battery life (2)

slacka (713188) | about 6 months ago | (#46549757)

It is ridiculous to put a such a high resolution display on a tiny screen. I just recently upgraded from a 720 Nexus 4 to a 1080 Nexus 5. I have great vision and side-by-side, I can't tell the difference between the two screens for fine text or pictures. While this phone is a great value, the battery life is terrible and the games run no better than their predecessor. If I had a choice, I'd much rather have the N5 with my old N4's 720p screen.

Re:Give us better battery life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46549935)

Agreed. Just exchanged my old 3GS (with a fresh battery) against the Nexus 5. The battery life is truly horrible. The radio module sure might be intended for wireless operation, but the power supply damn well isn't.

Re:Give us better battery life (1)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | about 6 months ago | (#46550189)

I hear you. LG's G2 is pretty much the same device as the nexus 5 but has a ~25% larger battery to accomodate the humongous display. It seems that pretty much the only companies not shooting for the highest specs possible today are Apple and Motorola, and they are both making pretty solid devices nevertheless. I also own a Nexus 4, and I'll hold out on upgrading until I see a Moto X2 or something like that. In fact, I was thinking about "upgrading" to a less powerful phone, like the Moto G, because shit, my Nexus 4 is underclocked to 1026MHz, undervolted and it still never lags, but drains my battery like mad. I love it, but only until the low battery alert pops up. Can't imagine making the switch to a device with a 1080p screen and 2.5 GHz quad-core processor.

Re:Stupid (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46549857)

This is a stupid race for the higher number.

This is a $599 phone with a titanium frame and generally good specs, not some crazy-expensive hipster toy. And there's a version of it with standard HD for $100 less if you're desperate for something more mundane...

http://reviews.cnet.com/smartp... [cnet.com]

Re:Stupid (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about 6 months ago | (#46550385)

$599 isn't expensive for a phone?

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46549861)

Maybe it is a stupid race right now, but when we are hitting about 50,000 ppi you will be jumping for joy. This is the resolution needed to make an actual holographic display, not the auto-stereoscopic displays that you may have seen before.

Re:Stupid (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46549875)

Wir mussen mit Wachsamkeit gegen das internationale Judentum mit Troll-Beitrage in Foren zu kampfen. Heil der Fuhrer!

Re:Stupid (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46549885)

I like it when cartmen gets beat up and he's lying on his back all fucked up. You like being in that pose, don't you.

Re:Stupid (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 6 months ago | (#46549977)

I'll reserve judgement until I have seen it, because I'm one of those freaks who can tell the difference between 1080p and 4k, but I do tend to agree with you. 1080p on a screen that small looks fantastic and adding more pixels would just seem to be wasting GPU power (although games could use 1080p and simply scale up). I'm not ruling out that it looks nice though, as again I'm one of those people who can see the ugly anti-aliasing on iPad "retina" displays, so maybe this will finally be like a real printed 600 DPI image.

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46549983)

Yet I would kill to have those kind of resolutions on my 12" laptop.

Re:Stupid (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 6 months ago | (#46550221)

Flat panel screens have the same yield issues as ICs (the process for creating them is vaguely similar). If you go from a 4" screen to a 8" screen, you quadruple the area, which quadruples the chance that there'll be a manufacturing error that will result in a dead / stuck pixel. This means that your yield drops by a factor of four.

Eventually, some one will figure out a way of creating really big panels and then cutting them to size, and then we'll have a large variety of screen sizes depending on where the defects happen to lie in a particular run.

Re:Stupid (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 6 months ago | (#46550479)

Yet I would kill to have those kind of resolutions on my 12" laptop.

There are already laptops which pack 1920x1080 and even 2560x1440 resolution into a 13.3" screen. However desktop operating systems do not have very good DPI scaling yet, so that kind of machines are quite painful to use.

Re:Stupid (1)

JavaBear (9872) | about 6 months ago | (#46549993)

They won't be happy before they put a 4K screen on a 5" unit.
Then they'll aim for 6K or 8K, just because the number is larger.

cameras (1)

tleaf100 (2020038) | about 6 months ago | (#46550099)

and phone cameras will be outputing 4k images. with 4k screens,less power used by gpu/cpu because its straight pixel for pixel. anything lower than 4k screen means more work for gpu.

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550013)

It is _allways_ a stupid race for the higher number.

Re:Stupid (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | about 6 months ago | (#46550315)

Perhaps so in regards to the PPI of the display, however the 4G / LTE features discussed in the summary are quite impressive, a proper worldphone.

Also, sooner or later, we'll reach a point where the PPI doesn't need to increase, I'd hazard a guess that 450+ PPI is going to be completely exceptional. I doubt you're going to see them focusing on going much higher than what this one has attained.

Re:Stupid (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 6 months ago | (#46550439)

After Apples "Retna" display DPI their isn't much of a reason to go much higher. For conventional displays.

That said I am not saying we shouldn't be making higher res displays. But the application of the technology should go to different areas. Such as smaller projectors.

I have an old iPhone 4. And the display is as sharp as any of the newer phones.
What they need to focus more on now is speed,battery life and if you are going to make the GPU better we need more 3d acceleration features. But we don't need to spend money on a higher dpi that will not give us any benefit other than sucking more battery and slowing the phone down.

Meh. Slashvertizement? (0)

digitalchinky (650880) | about 6 months ago | (#46549697)

Aside from the screen it doesn't really offer anything new. Most of the leading manufacturers have had similar devices for the last 5 months or so.

Battery life? (4, Insightful)

CoolGopher (142933) | about 6 months ago | (#46549701)

Okay, what about battery? Does it last a few weeks on a charge like a good old Nokia? If not, why not? Why this incessant focus on processing power? Having to charge my phone daily (or more frequently!) is where the pain is if you ask me.

Re:Battery life? (3, Insightful)

bluec (1427065) | about 6 months ago | (#46549771)

Yeah plugging it in at night and unplugging it in the morning is a real pain huh? It doesn't last as long as an old Nokia because it consumes more power and battery capacity is restrained by physical density, size, and cost. C'mon, charging your phone once per day is hardly a pain and for the vast majority is a completely insignificant cost compared to the benefit of the increased functionality that a power hungry smartphone has over an old Nokia dumb phone. If you'd rather trade off all those features for only having to plug it in once a week then crack on and buy a dumb phone.

Battery life? (0, Troll)

thatkid_2002 (1529917) | about 6 months ago | (#46549793)

It is a massive pain in the ass to charge these modern phones, and if your life is so predictable that you reliably have the privilege of plugging it in every 15-20 hours I feel sad for you.

Re:Battery life? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46549953)

if your life is so predictable that you reliably have the privilege of plugging it in every 15-20 hours I feel sad for you.

Such as sleeping at night in a place where there is electricity? Yes, pity me.

Re:Battery life? (3, Insightful)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 6 months ago | (#46550061)

What about trips to the cabin, hiking, hunting, fishing, camping with the scouts, etc?. As a scout leader I need my phone on during outings in case of emergency (either with us or from home) and having my phone only last 24 hours is simply not an option.

Re:Battery life? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550103)

What about trips to the cabin, hiking, hunting, fishing, camping with the scouts, etc?. As a scout leader I need my phone on during outings in case of emergency (either with us or from home) and having my phone only last 24 hours is simply not an option.

Then get a different phone. No one said that everyone needed to have the same phone. I need a phone for taking videos several times a week, and uploading them to other people. I also tether to it for my primary non-work internet connection. I don't have a cabin. I don't have scouts to go camping with. Some places hiking and fishing do not require multi-day trips beyond "the grid". I live in a major European capital city -- rent is high enough that I can't afford to be elsewhere very often. Does not mean that I need pity from thatkid_2002 or anybody else.

But if you're trying to get rid of that cabin for free, just let me know.

Re: Battery life? (1, Informative)

MoonBuggy (611105) | about 6 months ago | (#46550237)

The good thing about basic phones is that they were perfected years ago, so they're cheap now. If off grid emergency use is important, buy a Nokia 1100 and it'll last you a week - a couple of cheap batteries can easily extend that to a month, or a portable solar panel will make it indefinite.

The emergence of power-guzzling pocket computers doesn't mean that the basic, long life, $30 phones don't exist any more, it just means they aren't getting headlines.

Re:Battery life? (1)

swb (14022) | about 6 months ago | (#46550367)

Scout leader? Maybe try "be prepared."

Or better yet, maybe try to be a scout *leader* and teach your kids to survive off the grid, without modern gadgets, like, well scouts used to do.

Re:Battery life? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 6 months ago | (#46549965)

Really? Like most people I work 5 days a week and I'm surrounded by chargers. I am mostly wireless but if I needed to I could charge via cable at work. My car has a wireless charger. It's really no big deal, especially considering all the benefits I get from having a Nexus 5 instead of a Nokia dumbphone.

Re:Battery life? (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 6 months ago | (#46550287)

Or you know you could just turn those features that suck power off. When I'm abroad I usually turn off data transfer, if I also don't use it for games or the GPS tracker or any of the other power hungry uses and limit it to being a call/text only dumb phone then it lasts ages on a single charge. And if that's still not enough, get a Powerstation XL [mophie.com] and plug it in when and where you do sleep.

Re:Battery life? (1)

RR (64484) | about 6 months ago | (#46549821)

C'mon, charging your phone once per day is hardly a pain and for the vast majority is a completely insignificant cost compared to the benefit of the increased functionality that a power hungry smartphone has over an old Nokia dumb phone.

I didn't study technology because I wanted to be satisfied with the status quo. Right now, you cannot eat your cake and still have it, but what if you could?

I upgraded my phone because I wanted greater functionality. (Actually, I upgraded because I wanted the very cheap monthly plans on Republic Wireless. [republicwireless.com] ) I now have to plug my phone in every night instead of two to three times a week. The Moto X already has compromised specs to get very good battery life, and I only ran out of battery once after doing a 2-hour Google Hangout with video. I would not mind staying with this amount of power, but increasing battery life even more.

Memo to phone designers (3, Insightful)

thatkid_2002 (1529917) | about 6 months ago | (#46549789)

If a manufacturer proposed an average (dual core - last year's model is fine, 1GB RAM, 800x480 screen) phone that was affordable (no, really, $500 isn't affordable) with a big ass battery I would be like SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!

I don't understand all these designers who are pushing devices *waaaay* past the capabilities of the batteries. Smart watches (other than the Pebble, they did it right!) are doing exactly this and it is making their product a complete joke.

Re:Memo to phone designers (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 6 months ago | (#46550217)

So why not just buy last year's phone that fits that criteria? Something like a Galaxy Note perhaps, since they have massive batteries.

Re: Memo to phone designers (2)

MoonBuggy (611105) | about 6 months ago | (#46550227)

Get yourself a Moto G - the battery is good (although not astonishing: 1-2 days, rather than "oh shit, running out at 6pm"), the build quality and specs are excellent for normal usage (web, general communication), and they're dirt cheap compared to the competition.

Re:Battery life? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46549827)

powerful, thin, long battery life
pick any two?

Re:Battery life? (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 6 months ago | (#46550045)

It has a 3000mAh battery. That's actually pretty substantial for a phone.

Re:Battery life? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 6 months ago | (#46550105)

Unfortunately, not for a phone with this kind of a screen.

Re:Battery life? (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 6 months ago | (#46550153)

My requirements for battery life might be less than others. I only care about getting through a day. It should also be mentioned that it has rapid charging technology. They are alleging you can charge 75% of the battery in 30-minutes. If that's true it's sounds like a decent compromise to me.

Re:Battery life? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550271)

Maybe you should stop checking your Facebook so much, buddy :-)

My Samsung Galaxy S3 Mini gets around three days stand-by with light to medium use..

disable google services (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550355)

My xperia couldn't hold charge for more than half a day. I eventually removed the google search widget, disabled google now and keep the things I really want - gmail, im and phone functions.
Now it lasts all day including an hour or two using Netflix.

It's bad that we have to root our phones to achieve this but the difference is night and day.

Re:Battery life? (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about 6 months ago | (#46550365)

Okay, what about battery? Does it last a few weeks on a charge like a good old Nokia? If not, why not? Why this incessant focus on processing power? Having to charge my phone daily (or more frequently!) is where the pain is if you ask me.

How many people do you know today that do NOT charge their cell phone nightly, regardless of battery type or strength?

Yeah, I thought so.

Basically everyone I know does this. And I have a feeling manufacturers have basically given up on battery life because of this shift in mentality.

Regardless of battery type, design, or claims to last weeks, we're basically ALL in this same situation within 6 months of owning any new cell phone. Charging nightly now is the only way I am all but guaranteed to not run out of battery at any time. Many other users feel the same.

And there are devices out there that last weeks on a single charge. They're called flip phones. And now you know where all that battery-sucking tech is.

Re:Battery life? (1)

swb (14022) | about 6 months ago | (#46550417)

I don't remember flip phones having that great of a battery life.

I know I charged my StarTAC nightly (IIRC, I had two batteries and the morning routine was to swap the spare into the phone). The early digitals I had after that weren't great, either, and I seem to remember buying the "extended" batteries for them, too. as well as always charging them over night.

I don't really think my iPhone 5s is really that bad in terms of standby or even talk time battery performance. Maybe it is just "overnight charge" mental conditioning but I feel pretty good about 12 hours of light usage during the day and having 50%-ish battery left. I'm in the car a lot, and a ProClip holder with a charge cable/aux-in setup is as much about ease of use (making/taking calls, aux-in audio, not losing the damn thing between seats) as it is "needing" to charge it.

But then again, I've always been an "overnight" charging/fresh batteries every day mentality since the 1980s using NICADs and NiMH AAs with cassette Walkmen. Always owned at least for rechargeable cells, always swapped fresh cells into the Walkman every morning and put yesterday's into the charger.

Re:Battery life? (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about 6 months ago | (#46550443)

I don't remember flip phones having that great of a battery life.

I know I charged my StarTAC nightly (IIRC, I had two batteries and the morning routine was to swap the spare into the phone). The early digitals I had after that weren't great, either, and I seem to remember buying the "extended" batteries for them, too. as well as always charging them over night.

I don't really think my iPhone 5s is really that bad in terms of standby or even talk time battery performance. Maybe it is just "overnight charge" mental conditioning but I feel pretty good about 12 hours of light usage during the day and having 50%-ish battery left. I'm in the car a lot, and a ProClip holder with a charge cable/aux-in setup is as much about ease of use (making/taking calls, aux-in audio, not losing the damn thing between seats) as it is "needing" to charge it.

But then again, I've always been an "overnight" charging/fresh batteries every day mentality since the 1980s using NICADs and NiMH AAs with cassette Walkmen. Always owned at least for rechargeable cells, always swapped fresh cells into the Walkman every morning and put yesterday's into the charger.

I was specifically talking about flip phones of today, the one area within the cell industry that was actually able to take advantage of newer battery tech to offer real battery life without having to sacrifice it for 273 features we didn't want or ask for. Unfortunately, demand will make them obsolete.

And your mentality since the 1980s only further concretes my point about user mentality towards charging. This is why battery specs will likely remain static. People don't care anymore about multi-day battery claims because it's mostly bullshit once reality sets in, and manufacturers obviously care more about obscene display resolutions than battery life.

Truyly (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 6 months ago | (#46549703)

This is an ASS GOAT post, for Capitalisem!!!! and VAGIRNEIDK>!1

Poor Engineering Trade-off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46549719)

Who needs a 2560x1440(3.7m pixels) resolution on a 5" display? 1600x1080(1.7m pixels) is more than enough for anything that goes in my pocket. In fact, I was perfectly happy with my old 720p phone and even with great eye-sight, I can't tell the difference when comparing them side-by-side. What I want is a phone with great battery life and good performance in games. The energy and GPU time wasted in rendering approximately twice as many pixels(1.7m vs 3.7m) does nothing for me.

Re:Poor Engineering Trade-off (1)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | about 6 months ago | (#46549817)

What I want is a phone

Seems most manufacturers (and users?) forgot the "phone" bit. A good old dumb Nokia beat all of them when it comes to voice quality and coverage.

Re:Poor Engineering Trade-off (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 6 months ago | (#46549979)

Yep. My next phone is going to be the simplest phone I can get with tethering. If I want a mobile computer, I'll use my tablet or laptop. I want a phone I don't have to worry about, and that has a battery that lasts more than 16 hours.

Re:Poor Engineering Trade-off (1)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | about 6 months ago | (#46550201)

My next phone is going to be the simplest phone I can get with tethering.

Unfortunately, I have not found a simple phone with tethering. Not that I have looked too hard, but it seems that the basic models do not have it.

Re:Poor Engineering Trade-off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550395)

Try the Moto X -- it's actually innovative without fighting the spec war.

Re:Poor Engineering Trade-off (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 6 months ago | (#46550123)

I'd go even further. Because of this focus on amount of pixels rather than quality, we're not getting quality content. Modern mobile GPUs could probably push PS3/XB360 quality graphics at 480-720p. We could have had a controller-like phone holder and play previous gen console games on the phones if not for this fetish.

Instead all you get is crap like angry birds, flappy bird and so on. Deus Ex game mobile game was so terrible, it wasn't even funny, and it really, REALLY tried to push the envelope as much as possible with the format - it looked worse than most PS2 games. It's essentially impossible to make a good looking game on mobile today, because if you're going to support the native resolution, you have to make graphics quality awful to make mobile GPU able to play it.

It would be awesome if 480p or 720p would the most popular resolution, GPUs would continue to grow in power and we would have xb360/PS3 games ported to phones because there would actually be enough power to run them without massive changes.

Better translation: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46549779)

This phone will work on many different cellular network technologies, including LTE, all over the world.

Age (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46549805)

Both these guys saying stupid and crbbing about battery life must be 40 plus?

Re:Age (1)

maroberts (15852) | about 6 months ago | (#46550063)

Both these guys saying stupid and crbbing about battery life must be 40 plus?

Your point is? As a 49 year old I love my all singing all dancing Samsung Note, I like tablets (my family has 3), I like laptops (2). But because of the crappy battery life of all of them I keep a very basic mobile switched off close to hand just in case of an emergency. All of the rest aren't happy unless their charging port has a USB cable/ charger in its ass.

Complaining about this phone? (5, Insightful)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 6 months ago | (#46550073)

I am kind of surprised to see that the majority of posts are railing against this phone, mostly over the display resolution being so high. I'm thinking most people never made it past the summary. On top of what the summary lists, it has 3 gigabytes of ram, 32 gigabytes of internal storage, micro SD that can handle 128 gigabyte cards, 5 megapixel front facing camera, 50 (sorta) megapixel rear camera, 3000mAh removable battery. Rapid charging technology - going from 0 to 75% charge on a 3000mAh battery is pretty sweet.

At a $599 retail price point? That's pretty remarkable. The only thing the article does not discuss in the graphics chip set but I'm willing to bet it's nothing to sneeze at.

Re:Complaining about this phone? (1)

guises (2423402) | about 6 months ago | (#46550199)

Those are fine specs, but they get less impressive in a monstrously large phone like this one. After all, even a very small laptop would blow this away for both storage and performance and I doubt that this would fit comfortably in a pocket.

Re:Complaining about this phone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550413)

why to repost this day in slash history [slashdot.org]

Re:Complaining about this phone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550233)

Why? Does geekdom require cycling through a new $500 phone every twelve months? Stupid things deserve ridicule. There is NO POINT to 500+ ppi. Giant 5.5" phablets are ridiculous; when did we forego our ability to appreciate SMALL microelectronics. It has a 3000mAh car battery because it's radiating 30W of power cycling at 2.5 billion hertz. It's removable because you're going to need to carry two more to get through the day.

$599 is not remarkable. It's typical. Remarkable would be $199.

More technology than a laptop! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550107)

How do you measure the amount of technology in a phone, or laptop?
Do you count the number of patents used? If there are 100 buttons does that count as 100 button technologies, or does it count only once?
If the cellphone uses SDR do you still count all the different transmission types?
Is it fine to have a comment made up entirely of questions?

VoLTE (1)

TuringCheck (1989202) | about 6 months ago | (#46550143)

Would it do VoLTE or it's just a miniature computer with fancy Internet connection that gets turned off or downgraded when you happen to be in a "phone call" ?

That would be a great display for the Oculus Rift (1)

vadim_t (324782) | about 6 months ago | (#46550265)

I have DK1 and ordered DK2.

DK1 is cool as a prototype, but the lack of positioning gets annoying at times, and the resolution is horrible.

DK2 fixes that, but it sounds like the resolution still needs improving.

This is the kind of thing I'd love to have in there. The Rift as it stands right now won't work well with many UIs, as it's too low res to render the details, and it seriously breaks immersion to see things pixellated.

So the more the better I say, if it's overkill for a phone then there are other uses for it.

Oculus Rift (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550291)

I imagine getting these displays out to the market should help drop prices for supplies on VR headsets. I'm not sure why everyone is anti higher specs. Lets gree to raise the bottom line so it helps all products out

But why (1)

technotrader (3588231) | about 6 months ago | (#46550297)

I have a 27" monitor with that resolution, and need to ctrl+ on most web pages, including this one.

Blackphone is a much more worthy subject (1)

Burz (138833) | about 6 months ago | (#46550307)

Hopefully we'll see more about it on Slashdot once it starts shipping.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?