Leaked Manual Reveals Details On Google's Nexus 5

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Leaked Manual Reveals Details On Google's Nexus 5

Posted by timothy on Sunday October 6, 2013 @06:01PM from the leaked-with-big-old-air-quotes dept.

Features of Google's next Nexus phone have finally been outed, along with confirmation that the phone will be built by LG, as a result of a leaked service manual draft; here are some of the details as described at TechCrunch: "The new Nexus will likely be available in 16 or 32GB variants, and will feature an LTE radio and an 8-megapixel rear camera with optical image stabilization (there’s no mention of that crazy Nikon tech, though). NFC, wireless charging, and that lovely little notification light are back, too, but don’t expect a huge boost in longevity — it’s going to pack a sealed 2,300mAh battery, up slightly from the 2100mAh cell that powered last year’s Nexus 4. That spec sheet should sound familiar to people who took notice of what happened with the Nexus 4. Just as that device was built from the foundation laid by the LG Optimus G, the Nexus 5 (or whatever it’s going to be called) seems like a mildly revamped version of LG’s G2."

177 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Same with every nexus device by AuMatar · 2013-10-06 18:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Every Nexus device going back the very first has been an existing phone with a few minor upgrades at most and a different set of software installed. Why would anyone expect different this time? My only surprise is that Google hasn't started having their Motorola arm manufacture them yet. Probably due to not wanting to push OEMs to other options.

--
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
1. Re:Same with every nexus device by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 18:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think Google is very smart to use other OEMs, as it gives them more scale to compete, keeping the Android market healthier. Motorola and Samsung (in 2013) don't need it, but LG can certainly do with more scale.
2. Re:Same with every nexus device by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 18:37 · Score: 0
  
  LG should use MongoDB; I hear it's web scale.
3. Re:Same with every nexus device by ZDroid · 2013-10-06 19:14 · Score: 0
  
  LG should use MongoDB; I hear it's web scale.
  MongoDB isn't in this story. Forget it. :)
4. Re:Same with every nexus device by davester666 · 2013-10-06 20:11 · Score: 1
  
  They are still flushing out the crap devices in the pipeline from before Google bought Motorola...
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
5. Re:Same with every nexus device by bemymonkey · 2013-10-06 21:16 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm which phone was the Galaxy Nexus based on, then? The Nexus 4?
6. Re:Same with every nexus device by bluefoxlucid · 2013-10-06 22:59 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Galaxy Nexus was a Samsung based on the Samsung Galaxy, not sure which (I think the G2). Nexus 4 was another LG phone but I don't follow them so can't call out the model.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
7. Re:Same with every nexus device by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 23:21 · Score: 0
  
  Whoosh!
8. Re:Same with every nexus device by bemymonkey · 2013-10-06 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  That's wrong. I own the Galaxy Nexus and I've owned a Galaxy SII - NOT the same.
  The Nexus S was practically a Galaxy S... but after that?
9. Re:Same with every nexus device by creepynut · 2013-10-07 00:18 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The Galaxy Nexus was pretty much in a league of it's own at the time. Seems like Samsung was really pushing for it.
  The Nexus One was basically an HTC Desire.
  The Nexus S was pretty much a Galaxy S.
  The Nexus 4 is very close (internally) to the LG Optimus G.
  This new Nexus 5 looks like will be based on an LG G2
10. Re:Same with every nexus device by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2013-10-07 01:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yes but I expect more out of Apple because they brazenly claim to be superior to everyone else, and yet offer trivial updates and no real innovation for the first 6 versions of their iPhone, and even the iPhone 5s refresh is only skin deep in terms of innovation.
  I will start calling Google out when they have gone through 6 intervals of Nexus X devices and nothing has changed except the thickness of the phone, but the differences in Nexus 4 to 5 are more numerous than the differences between even iPhone 4 and iPhone 5, so they have a little more edge on innovation then Apple does.
  
  --
  I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
11. Re:Same with every nexus device by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 01:55 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry just not true. The jump from the developer's G1 to the original Nexus was huge. Huuuuuge.
12. Re:Same with every nexus device by Xicor · 2013-10-07 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  it isnt designed to be the best android device, it is designed to be a cheap android device
13. Re:Same with every nexus device by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  Android fanbois and Apple users? I think you've got that backwards. We Android users have Androids because Microsoft sucks and Apple is overpriced bling. If I could get an unsubsidized current model that runs the latest Apple OS for the same $125 I paid for my waterproof unsubsidized (no contract) Android I'd probably buy one.
  Apple users? They NEED those expensive status symbols like middle-aged men NEED that porche and young office workers NEED that Ford F-150. The only fans of electronic gear are Apple fans, period.
14. Re:Same with every nexus device by Zappy · 2013-10-07 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  HTC Desire only change wat the trackball
15. Re:Same with every nexus device by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  Every Nexus device going back the very first has been an existing phone with a few minor upgrades at most
  Could you tell us please what the G1 and Nexus One were based off of, then?
  Honestly if they upgraded the hardware just a bit I'd take a Nexus One today....
16. Re:Same with every nexus device by exomondo · 2013-10-07 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  I expect more from them because they tie the hardware and software together, that gives a significant advantage in terms of being able to optimize the software and deliver software features dependent on specific hardware. Sure Android OEMs could do the same but they have to build off the existing Android codebase and it is in their interest not to deviate too much so as to be able to keep it maintainable over time.
17. Re:Same with every nexus device by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 09:57 · Score: 0
  
  yes because people can be categorized by the operating system on the phone they use, retard. normal people aren't ostensibly tied to any particular piece of technology, geeks are and geeks just think everybody else is too.
18. Re:Same with every nexus device by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 11:20 · Score: 0
  
  Apple users? They NEED those expensive status symbols like middle-aged men NEED that porche and young office workers NEED that Ford F-150.
  So what you are saying is that they don't actually NEED them, they are just cool things to have if you can afford them. That's fair enough, nothing wrong with that.
19. Re:Same with every nexus device by mjwx · 2013-10-07 15:26 · Score: 1
  
  Every Nexus device going back the very first has been an existing phone with a few minor upgrades at most and a different set of software installed.
  And this is the brilliant part of it.
  
  Google has zero experience with HW, however they're excellent with simple, functional yet extremely powerful software.
  
  Samsung, LG, HTC and others make great hardware but shit software with crapily reskinned version of Android and social media up the wazoo. If you wanted something more spartan or something that was easily modifiable on great hardware you wanted a Nexus device.
  
  However I'm a bit disappointed that we haven't seen anything decent from Moto. Moto makes better HW than Samsung IMHO but again, crap software and even worse locked bootloaders.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
20. Re:Same with every nexus device by bemymonkey · 2013-10-07 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  You're thinking of the NExus One. The Galaxy Nexus is a different phone...
21. Re:Same with every nexus device by lsatenstein · 2013-10-11 23:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yes but I expect more out of Apple because they brazenly claim to be superior to everyone else, and yet offer trivial updates and no real innovation for the first 6 versions of their iPhone, and even the iPhone 5s refresh is only skin deep in terms of innovation.
  I will start calling Google out when they have gone through 6 intervals of Nexus X devices and nothing has changed except the thickness of the phone, but the differences in Nexus 4 to 5 are more numerous than the differences between even iPhone 4 and iPhone 5, so they have a little more edge on innovation then Apple does.
  Isn't Apple applying the BBB principle? What is BBB, well the second B is for Baffles, and the third B stands for Brains
  
  --
  Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Crazy tech? by Adrian+Harvey · 2013-10-06 18:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

I haven't been following closely enough to know what the "crazy Nikon tech" is - anyone care to enlighten me? Google doesn't give relevant info...
1. Re:Crazy tech? by JYD · 2013-10-06 18:21 · Score: 2
  
  MEMS http://www.nikonmetrology.com/en_US/Applications/Electronics/MEMS
2. Re:Crazy tech? by JYD · 2013-10-06 18:23 · Score: 2
  
  Sorry wrong link above, but to reiterate, I believe it is the MEMS autofocus that is supposed to be the killer feature.
3. Re:Crazy tech? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  a killer feature in a camera phone? pluuueaaze! the form factor restricts camera phones (and ones in tablets) to small optics and small sensors. a camera phone will always be just a camera phone until some point in the future where a totally different and superior way to capture digital images is invented...
  an expensive phone with a camera might approach the quality of a cheap point-and-shoot (which also have small optics and sensors), but if you are at all serious about taking photographs, you'll be carrying a real camera and using your phone for its intended purpose.. making phone calls.
4. Re:Crazy tech? by AuMatar · 2013-10-06 19:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Except that 95% of the market isn't serious about taking photographs. That's why photography studios across the country died- ubiquitous smart phone cameras were good enough. Same for professional photographers- most of them have found new careers, because except for weddings there's no demand anymore.
  Digital camera sales have plateaued and are now decreasing (by 18% year over year worldwide, 43% in north america). Nobody carries a camera around anymore, phones take a good enough picture (probably just as good given the skills of the people using them) and are more convenient to carry- heck you're carrying them anyway. At parties where before a couple people might bring their cameras, now nobody does- they pull out their phone.
  So yeah, a better smart phone camera would address a large market- everyone who enjoys taking photos, but doesn't do art photos. I know a good number of people who tossed their digital cameras away but take the camera into consideration when buying a phone.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
5. Re:Crazy tech? by spire3661 · 2013-10-06 19:49 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The best camera is the one you have with you.
  
  --
  Good-bye
6. Re:Crazy tech? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 20:23 · Score: 0
  
  Whilst arguing this from both ends, thou contradictest thyself.
  The consumers giveth not a shit regarding camera quality; Lo, they useth phone cameras, forsaking discretes. Why shall they suddenly take heed of the camera once 'tis in the phone?
  'Tis no killer feature. It shall be soundly ignored by all, be they camera-lovers or otherwise.
7. Re:Crazy tech? by gl4ss · 2013-10-06 21:19 · Score: 1
  
  ..which gets us to why optical stabilisation is so useful.
  and that the manual doesn't mention nikon means of course nothing. the manual certainly doesn't mention all chip manufacturers on the phone either...
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
8. Re:Crazy tech? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe "real cameras" appeal to a niche market that fancy themselves discerning? It's no different from audiophiles. Some people have a hard-on for DSLR.
  No-one else can be bothered to carry around a 5lb piece of glass & aluminum all the time just so they can take better pictures in dim lighting and fill up microSD cards faster with pixels that they will never see on their low pixel count computer monitors/cell phones/tablets.
  Since nobody but professionals, graphic designers, & web developers ever needs high resolution images: people use a GoPro or FlipHD for anything that justifies more than a point and shoot. Cell phones are good enough to replace point and shoots for everything else.
  Unless you're a crime scene photographer or paparazzi, odds are the average attention span available for looking at your picture is 3 seconds. Act accordingly.
  Best use I've seen DSLRs used for in the past decade is photogrammetry capture studios, where they are scientific equipment rather than a fetish.
9. Re:Crazy tech? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 21:55 · Score: 0
  
  Funny comment. Too bad I just used up my mod points.
10. Re:Crazy tech? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 22:22 · Score: 0
  
  Do you hang around a bunch of people who carry a camera around with them all the time?
  Because given a choice between the two, I know which one is weird.
11. Re:Crazy tech? by Zuriel · 2013-10-06 23:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This. A friend was telling me about how superior his early, hard disk based MP3 player was compared to using modern Android or iOS devices. He could plug surround speakers into it, it had an equaliser, etc, etc, etc. So I pulled out my phone and asked him to show his MP3 player to me. He didn't have it with him. Convenience is a completely legitimate advantage. Yeah, a phone camera will always suck compared to a camera that's physically larger, but a camera that you have with you will always take better pictures than a camera that's in a drawer at home.
12. Re:Crazy tech? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  >The best camera is the one you have with you.
  so always have the best camera with you.
13. Re:Crazy tech? by RivenAleem · 2013-10-07 00:09 · Score: 1
  
  What, my eyes? My memory? Whoa, that's deep dude.
14. Re:Crazy tech? by RivenAleem · 2013-10-07 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  Camera makers hate her. Find out why she takes such great photos with one crazy tech!
15. Re:Crazy tech? by WD · 2013-10-07 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  If you'd bother to RTFA, you would have noticed that the phrase "crazy Nikon tech" is hyperlinked.
16. Re:Crazy tech? by AJH16 · 2013-10-07 01:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Arguably, the photos most people take with a smartphone are actually better than they would take with a "real" camera. As sensor size increases, sensitivity to focus also increases. If you don't know how to properly use the autofocus of your "real" camera, you'll get a lot of out of focus images. On a camera phone, it's a lot easier and there isn't a whole lot of advantage for a point and shoot over a smartphone.
  If you know what you are doing, the difference between a smartphone and a DSLR is night and day, but most people don't. Note, I say this as a professional photographer that shoots weddings with a Canon 5D Mark iii. I do it as a part time gig specifically because the impact on the market is quite real since the images are good enough for most people and even then, people flood in to the market thinking they can shoot weddings because they had some "good" facebook photos and bought an entry level DSLR with a kit lens.
  The fact is, the main thing that differentiates professional photographers from the amateur has very little to do with the photography. Even if you know how to use the gear perfectly, doing a good, professional job is far more about making the client comfortable, having the experience to avoid being overly noticeable while capturing the key moments, having the ability to interact with people in such a way to get both good posed and candid shots and the ability to run a business and sell yourself. The actual ability to take photos is the easiest 10% of what it takes to do the job.
  
  --
  AJ Henderson
17. Re:Crazy tech? by h4rr4r · 2013-10-07 01:19 · Score: 2
  
  Making phone calls what century do you live in?
  I take more picture and shoot more video than calls I make. It is first and foremost a computing device, then a camera lastly a phone.
  Why would I lug my camera everywhere with me? Do I really read my DSLR to take pictures of racks and server ID tags?
18. Re:Crazy tech? by MasterOfGoingFaster · 2013-10-07 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  The best camera is the one you have with you.
  Ah, you are quoting Chase Jarvis - who wrote a book with this as the title.
  This is fine advice, if the goal is to persuade photographers to go ahead and use their smartphone, rather than whine about not having their good camera with them - thus missing the shot. But it offers zero assistance for camera selection.
  The camera I have with me is the camera I select before I leave the house. That might be a tiny Nikon V1, or a large Nikon D800 DSLR. Or I might pack up the Sinar 4x5 view camera, as it is still unbeaten by any digital camera at any price. I only use my Nexus' camera for note taking, or to read a bar code. Perhaps the occasional snapshot. Frankly, I'd rather my phone have a 4MP camera with larger sensels, which should allow for better low-light sensitivity. But the fact is, no cellphone can hold a candle to any modern dSLR, and I believe a lot of people see the same number of pixels on both cameras and assume the quality must be pretty close. Sadly, this is not the case, and the phone vendor's pursuit of higher "megapixel rating" only makes it worse.
  
  --
  Place nail here >+
19. Re:Crazy tech? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  No, you're still missing the point. It does offer assistance for camera selection.
  It tells you that you need to look at a camera and say to yourself "Will I actually have this with me?". You might dismiss a high-end compact as not being able to keep up with a dSLR and then find that when packing for that weekend away you don't bring the dSLR because it's so heavy and cumbersome and you end up with photos taken on somebody's phone when they could have been from a decent compact.
  It's even helpful for decisions about add-ons. Big tripod or small one? Well, will you actually carry the big tripod to the places where you'll wish you had it? If not it's pointless to own one.
  The only people who can afford to ignore the idea of "the one you have with you" are those professionals who either work a narrow niche for which they can carry the full load-out (like fashion photography), or have assistants to bring everything. Even paps have to keep it in mind, sure you've got 50kg of gear when you're stood outside a nightclub, but what about when you run into the week's hot new starlet in tracksuit bottoms in the grocery store, whatever you're carrying is what you're going to use to take the photo, and if that's nothing then no photo credit for you.
20. Re:Crazy tech? by Nexus7 · 2013-10-07 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  The rumor about having a MEMS camera was based on someone checking the leaked phone logs, and seeing that the Sony sensor used by the camera was the same sensor used by the company that builds MEMS cameras. In other words, a leap of hope.
21. Re:Crazy tech? by interkin3tic · 2013-10-07 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone does. You probably are thinking "best" in terms of image quality, rather than "fits in my pocket and won't get damaged," but that's not necessarily the best definition of "best."
22. Re:Crazy tech? by Nemyst · 2013-10-07 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  This works well for unexpected moments, but at parties, weddings, events, whatever, you can actually plan ahead. I know, "planning", gosh.
  
  After reading this one liner, you can go a step further and realize that you can have multiple "best" cameras! Things are not mutually exclusive! If you don't have your camera on you, then your phone's better than nothing. Otherwise, pretty much any other camera is superior.
23. Re:Crazy tech? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  I got your back. No wait, I never mod anonymous comments.
24. Re: Crazy tech? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 03:26 · Score: 0
  
  At parties you can be the one with the big cumbersome camera and tripod, trying to direct people and frame them into your shots. Yeah. The guy in everybody else's way.
25. Re:Crazy tech? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  Arguably, the photos most people take with a smartphone are actually better than they would take with a "real" camera. As sensor size increases, sensitivity to focus also increases.
  It's not focus that makes camera phone pictures suck, it's optics. The larger the aperture, the better the quality of the photograph. It's physics. Keep in mind any advances to sensors that would make phone cameras better will also be applied to regular camera sensors. Bigger and better glass will win every time.
  The difference between a picture taken with an iPhone and a Canon 5D with a large aperture L lens is phenomenal. Even amateurs who know nothing of photography are wowed by the clarity and detail of such images.
26. Re:Crazy tech? by shellbeach · 2013-10-07 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  The real point behind having a large camera is to restrict the focal depth of field. This allows you to highlight a subject in the foreground whilst blurring the background (think portrait photography). And the laws of optics aren't going to allow a pinhole camera to ever manage that, sadly.
  Incidentally, the laws of optics also mean that most of these camera phones are diffraction limited around 8mp (and that's being generous). I'm not sure why more manufacturers don't stick with a decent 5mp rather than throwing away dynamic range on silly sensors packed with unnecessary pixels ...
27. Re:Crazy tech? by TheloniousToady · 2013-10-07 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Good points.
  
  I'm not sure why more manufacturers don't stick with a decent 5mp rather than throwing away dynamic range on silly sensors packed with unnecessary pixels ...
  Marketing, Benjamin - marketing.
28. Re:Crazy tech? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  I never mod anonymous comments.
  That is horrible. I love to moderate deserving AC comments. It's not "throwing karma away" (just as making an electronic copy does not remove the original). I like to think that the AC who posts a positive-moderation-deserving comment will check back now and then to see if they were moderated. If so, they "feel" their karma instead of having it stored in Slashdot's database.
  (Posting anonymously as I moderated this thread and marked one AC comment 'funny'; though not the great-grandparent.)
29. Re:Crazy tech? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  It's not focus that makes camera phone pictures suck
  Then it's a good thing that's not at all what he said.
30. Re:Crazy tech? by gnapster · 2013-10-07 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  Hear, hear! Moderation is first about sifting threads for quality discussion. Rewarding and penalizing commenters comes later. I wonder, does the grandparent also never mod down anonymous comments?
  (Posting non-anonymously as I haven't had any mod points since Saturday.)
31. Re: Crazy tech? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 10:01 · Score: 0
  
  At parties you can be the one with the big cumbersome camera and tripod, trying to direct people and frame them into your shots. Yeah. The guy in everybody else's way.
  You could equally be the one with the smartphone and tripod, trying to direct people and frame them into your shots.
32. Re:Crazy tech? by mjwx · 2013-10-07 15:52 · Score: 1
  
  Arguably, the photos most people take with a smartphone are actually better than they would take with a "real" camera. As sensor size increases, sensitivity to focus also increases.
  Just a proper lens which can change focus will improve shots.
  
  But the reason a lot of people produce worse shots with a DSLR than a smart phone is that they are just crap photographers. Watch them fumble with focusing, let alone understanding the effects of changing aperture and film speed (erm, not sure what the digital equivalent is called). They dont even know what a light meter is, so if you give them a camera that does more and requires more work from the user it's inevitable that quality is lost. Good equipment doesn't make a bad photographer good.
  
  I first used SLR's when they all used film (the digital camera was still so expensive only militiaries used it) but now I travel with a Point & Shoot only for convenience reasons (the P&S fits in my pocket, battery life is fantastic, instant startup). The difference between a smartphone and a decent P&S in the hands of a semi-decent photographer is the chalk and cheese (and chalk sandwiches suck).
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
33. Re:Crazy tech? by kenshin33 · 2013-10-07 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  most point and shoot are less expensive (less than 200$) , smaller and waaaaaaaaaaay better than any camera phone out there!
  sensor size alone is not comparable.
34. Re:Crazy tech? by kenshin33 · 2013-10-07 16:40 · Score: 1
  
  a large(sessor) camera is not a requirement for that. doable with a compact point and shoot (not as noticiable nor beatiful but still).
35. Re:Crazy tech? by AJH16 · 2013-10-08 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  Hey mjwx, for legacy SLRs I agree with you, but tech has moved forward a bunch since then. A modern DSLR is well capable of handling the metering for a user just as well as a smartphone or point and shoot, so that really isn't what impacts the performance of a beginner using a DSLR. To really make the most of it, you need to understand the exposure triangle, but you can get by using a DSLR and take better photos than a point and shoot with no understanding of exposure triangle. (Also, FYI, ISO is still called ISO, It's not technically film speed anymore, but it is the same sensitivity levels applied to the gain on the sensor, so all the old calculations still work.)
  What I meant about focusing is that focus point selection is critical and people are poor at that. With a point and shoot or phone camera, you can touch the general area and depth of field is forgiving enough that you get a decent image and with face detection, even that isn't necessary. With the incredibly shallow depth of fields you get with a DSLR, particularly with a fast lens and a full frame sensor, you have to be focusing on the exact point you want in focus. This is why I say the primary problem for a typical consumer is that the focus is too sensitive. I frequently here people complain about there out of focus shots when moving from a smartphone or point and shoot to a DSLR because of this. It's probably the most frequent complaint because people aren't expecting it since they don't understand optics.
  Also, the vast majority of high end smart phone users would disagree on the chalk and cheese comparison for point and shoots. (Which btw, I had to look up what that meant, so I did learn something today.) The big thing is that the image quality is comparable because both are very small sensors with miniscule optics. You do get a minor advantage of having some optical zoom capability, but with the vast majority of point and shoots, you have longer or equivalent shutter delay to a good smartphone camera and lack the ease of use to work with the image afterwords that a smartphone affords. There are trade offs and in some cases the P&S may win out, but generally, in those cases, a DSLR or mirrorless wins out even more. At this point I'd say for the majority of people, the smartphone camera is close enough that a P&S isn't worth it for most people, for those people that really need the zoom level in a portable package (a niche group) then mirrorless is best and then for those who want the best image quality possible and don't mind learning about proper camera usage, a DSLR is head and shoulders above in capability if the shooter's ability is on par.
  
  --
  AJ Henderson
36. Re:Crazy tech? by AJH16 · 2013-10-08 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  I'm saying that focus makes people suck taking photos with DSLRs. Focus on camera phones is comparatively forgiving due to the sensor size producing less background blur (in fact, it makes background blur near impossible.) This results in a wider depth of field, so focus doesn't have to be spot on. When you move to a DSLR, the sensitivity to choosing the proper focal point increases drastically. It allows things like getting bokeh, but it also requires being more careful how you shoot and a beginner isn't at all careful how they shoot.
  Also, it isn't just larger aperture=better picture. It's mostly larger sensor size = better picture. Diffraction limiting becomes an issue quicker the smaller the sensor is and the depth of field is also made wider by a smaller sensor, which limits the amount of background blur you can produce. So while you didn't have the full answer, I don't disagree with you for what you are saying, but it isn't what I was saying in my first post, I was speaking on the other side of the same statement, which is how those gains hurt the average non-photographer when using a DSLR.
  
  --
  AJ Henderson
37. Re:Crazy tech? by Shirley+Marquez · 2013-10-08 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  All that and reliability. The distinguishing feature of the professional isn't taking better pictures than the amateur (though they often do), but rather getting a good picture on every assignment. If you book a professional you have a high degree of confidence that you will get something you can use, whether it be the wedding photographer, the professional portrait photographer, the sports specialist, or the newspaper photographer who gets pictures of event scenes and interview subjects. An amateur might come back with something just as good or even better - or might come back with nothing.
38. Re:Crazy tech? by Shirley+Marquez · 2013-10-08 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  At the moment the point-&-shoot has three real advantages over most smartphone cameras: optical zoom, image stabilization, and a better lens. Optical zoom gets you better images when you are zoomed in. Image stabilization gets better images in low light. A better lens gives you a sharper picture. The P&S is also likely to have a higher resolution sensor.
  But smartphones are closing all of those gaps. Within a couple of years, high end smartphone cameras will approach feature parity with mainstream P&S cameras (a couple of models are already nearly there), and P&S cameras will largely die off.
  Digital SLRs and mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras will still be available for professionals and serious enthusiasts, and probably a few models of high-end P&S cameras (like the digital Leicas and the Sony RX-100, though with higher specs as the technology improves) will survive. Those cameras will offer capabilities that smartphones are unlikely to be able to match for some time if ever: better low light performance (all else being equal, a larger image sensor and a bigger lens gather more light), capturing large bursts of images (in part because they have room for super high speed memory cards that won't fit in a phone), and more control over the image (because their larger bodies have room for more buttons and knobs). Finally, they offer a viewfinder (either an optical one as in most SLRs or an electronic view as in MILCs and the Sony Alpha SLRs), which is a big help in extremes of light. (In bright sunlight an LCD screen is hard to see. In dark situations a glowing screen distracts from the ambience of the situation; using a viewfinder avoids that problem.)
39. Re:Crazy tech? by AJH16 · 2013-10-08 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  There are at least one or two smartphone cameras that have image stabilization now. There are also one or two smartphones that include an optical zoom, though they are really more specialty devices. Better lenses I'd say is debatable, on a high end point and shoot, sure, but there are some pretty bad lenses on some point and shoots too. The resolution is less of an issue because diffraction limiting is going to prevent a lot of that gain from being realized with the higher resolution point and shoot, though they do generally still have slightly larger sensors which makes a difference as well.
  I agree that there are some advantages to P&S over smartphones, it just isn't enough to justify having one as a separate $400+ device for most people and mirrorless take things much further for only a little bit more without sacrificing the portability. It's more that their market has already been pinched off by smartphones on the one side and mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras on the other.
  You are probably right that we'll see some specialty "portable" cameras but I'd also challenge they don't really belong in the point and shoot category at that point since they are, by nature, designed to be more advanced than simply pointing and shooting in most cases and more for portability of an advanced feature set.
  
  --
  AJ Henderson
40. Re:Crazy tech? by AJH16 · 2013-10-08 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Ehh, a lot of that is just quantity though. I do shoot consistently better images than an amateur, but the name of the game in professional photography is always quantity. Too many factors you can't control. I can do everything perfect, but a last second blink or movement can ruin the shot. At a typical wedding, I'll shoot 3000 or so photos. Maybe 1 in 10 of them will be what I would rate as a really great photo, but that still winds up being 300 great photos. Even if an amateur's rate is more like 1 in 100, that's still 30 great photos as long as they can maintain that success rate at a high speed of capturing images.
  For studio work, it does matter more though since the pro is going to understand things about lighting that an amateur won't, so they will get better results in that case. Event photography with largely uncontrolled lighting is mostly just quantity though to guarantee good images.
  
  --
  AJ Henderson
I want a Nexus 3 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 18:17 · Score: 1

Shouldn't we be able to make smaller phones? 6 years ago we easily have the tech to make my dumb phone which is significantly smaller than an Nexus 4. I'd like a comparably sized smart phone. I don't care if its fancy, I just want an up to date android version and the basic hardware features.
Sadly, it looks like mostly we are moving to larger phones with more bloated software that requires fancy CPUs and lots of batteries. It would be nice if general software efficiency was improving like it is for hardware....
1. Re:I want a Nexus 3 by spamchang · 2013-10-06 18:27 · Score: 1
  
  The sell "entry-level" or "low-cost" smartphones in developing markets like Africa or Asia. Look on eBay for such phones.
2. Re:I want a Nexus 3 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 18:58 · Score: 0
  
  Samsung Galaxy Folder SHV-E400K.
  http://vr-zone.com/articles/samsung-galaxy-folder-launching-in-august-as-a-jelly-bean-flip-phone-with-lte/45577.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=samsung-galaxy-folder-launching-in-august-as-a-jelly-bean-flip-phone-with-lte
  Older versions sell for around $170 off-contract.
3. Re:I want a Nexus 3 by AuMatar · 2013-10-06 19:21 · Score: 2
  
  They still sell smaller phones in HVGA sizes. There's not a lot of demand for them though- they're difficult to use (fonts are so small most people can't click on links well), the keyboards are almost impossible to manipulate, and there's so little screen real estate that most apps won't fit on them. Basically there so annoying to use most people who want that size prefer a cheap dumb phone.
  For myself, I want something even bigger- I'll be picking up either a note 3 or a galaxy mega in the next few weeks. I want the biggest screen that will still fit in my pocket, it makes actually using the phone for internet, apps, or navigation MUCH easier.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
4. Re:I want a Nexus 3 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a nexus-4 owner coming from a nexus-S. Despite my concerns about size and using one hand, I'm glad I switched. It is true it is more difficult to use one hand only, yet you get sort of used to. However, when using two hands (two thumbs in portrait mode) I type much faster and with far less errors than previously. Higher size means that you make fewer mistakes because keyboard buttons are larger.
5. Re:I want a Nexus 3 by jrumney · 2013-10-06 21:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I don't care if its fancy, I just want an up to date android version and the basic hardware features.
  
  Sadly, it looks like mostly we are moving to larger phones with more bloated software that requires fancy CPUs and lots of batteries
  No sadly, it looks like mostly we are moving to a world full of people who want things while simultaneously not wanting them. The price you pay for an up to date Android version rather than the crawling JavaME engine in your dumb phone of 6 years ago, is a fancy CPU and the battery to power it. Put these phones side by side and tell me again that the difference in battery drain is caused by software efficiency not improving. Oh, and try to actually use your JavaME engine while you're at it, and see how it is on the battery. A major part of the reason why the batteries on your 6 year old dumb phone lasted so long is that it spent the majority of its life sitting in your pocket on cell-standby, because lets face it, it wasn't much use for anything else was it?
6. Re: I want a Nexus 3 by Sigg3.net · 2013-10-06 21:53 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like you're in the market for a Firefox phone.
  
  --
  Defining Statistics and Social Research
7. Re:I want a Nexus 3 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 22:25 · Score: 0
  
  They already have these, and plenty of them.
  Just the "big name" phones don't fit your description, because you are in a very small minority of people who want these features. They're out there, but they're not going to be on the front page.
8. Re:I want a Nexus 3 by alostpacket · 2013-10-07 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  You might look at a Moto X -- nearly the same performance in a smaller form factor. (Smaller than the Nexus 4, and Galaxy Nexus but it hat the same screen size).
  
  --
  PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
9. Re: I want a Nexus 3 by AvitarX · 2013-10-07 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  I find the trend towards menus in thehtop left makes one handed operation difficult on my htc one s, especially with a case. I would love a nexus one with a high density display personally.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
10. Re:I want a Nexus 3 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  I want a nexus phone that doesn't feel like a big-screen-tv in my pocket. Something the size of iphone4-ish would be perfect---obviously with modern CPU & latest android, etc.
11. Re:I want a Nexus 3 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 10:15 · Score: 0
  
  Shouldn't we be able to make smaller phones? 6 years ago we easily have the tech to make my dumb phone which is significantly smaller than an Nexus 4. I'd like a comparably sized smart phone. I don't care if its fancy, I just want an up to date android version and the basic hardware features.
  you might want that but most people don't want that.
  
  Sadly, it looks like mostly we are moving to larger phones with more bloated software that requires fancy CPUs and lots of batteries.
  'bloated' is the term people use when they cant even point to anything specific at any abstraction. if you want less features then use an older version of the software, or better yet since Android is free software you can strip it down yourself or pay somebody to do it for you, that's the supposed benefit of free software.
  
  It would be nice if general software efficiency was improving like it is for hardware....
  it is, just look at things like the live camera filters in iOS7 that can be used even on the old 4S.
12. Re:I want a Nexus 3 by exomondo · 2013-10-07 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  I want a nexus phone that doesn't feel like a big-screen-tv in my pocket.
  Why do you need the nexus branding so badly? What's wrong with any of the plethora of other Android devices available?
13. Re:I want a Nexus 3 by Shirley+Marquez · 2013-10-08 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  One advantage of a Nexus phone is that you are certain to get all the Android software updates, and get them in a timely manner. The other is that the software isn't messed up with "enhancements" to Android; you get everything that Google offers and nothing else.
  These advantages are important to some people. For developers they are crucial; it means you're guaranteed to have an up to date device to test your apps.
  The above is true for Nexus phones bought directly from Google. The Galaxy Nexus was sold both directly by Google and by carrier versions, but the carrier versions didn't always get the same updates. (Before that, the Nexus One was sold directly by Google in carrier-specific versions, and the Nexus S was only sold by carriers.) When the Nexus 4 came out, Google stopped doing carrier versions of the Nexus because that lack of software updates was damaging the brand. Verizon and Sprint customers are left out for now; Google does not offer CDMA versions of the Nexus phones, and a phone that is only usable on LTE networks is not yet viable because the carriers have not yet deployed voice over LTE.
14. Re:I want a Nexus 3 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-08 09:30 · Score: 0
  
  Nexus phones guaranteed to get updated to latest Android version. Many Android phones never get updated because the manufacturer doesn't want to bother.
  No phone/carrier crapware.
15. Re:I want a Nexus 3 by exomondo · 2013-10-08 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  One advantage of a Nexus phone is that you are certain to get all the Android software updates, and get them in a timely manner.
  Well that's debatable, the Nexus S for example was released at the late2010/early2011 and at the end of 2012 they announced it would not be getting the 4.2 update, it went out of support pretty quickly.
  
  When the Nexus 4 came out, Google stopped doing carrier versions of the Nexus because that lack of software updates was damaging the brand.
  Well that's a good thing.
ARMv8? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 18:32 · Score: 0

When will a Nexus device support ARMv.8?
This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by pthisis · 2013-10-06 18:43 · Score: 5, Informative

the Nexus 5 (or whatever it’s going to be called) seems like a mildly revamped version of LG’s G2.
No, it really doesn't. The two most-often mentioned features of the G2 are:
a) The gorgeous 5.2" screen; and
b) A 3000 mAh battery; and
c) The rear-panel placement of the only buttons (power/volume), as opposed to the traditional volume rocker on the side that most smartphones have.
This has none of those--it has a 4.95" screen and a 2300 mAh battery. And the buttons are laid out like a standard smartphone. Those things alone are significant alterations that make these phones different in the most visible and usable ways.
The G2 also has a 13 megapixel rear camera; this has an 8 mp camera.
The G2 also has a customized version of Android with knock-on and other features; the Nexus 5, presuming it follows the Nexus pattern, will run a standard Android OS and UI (and get faster OS updates).
Without digging into it for more than 30 seconds, I see a phone with a different screen, different camera, different battery, different physical button layout, and different UI, and with significantly different physical properties (e.g. wireless charging on the Nexus)--these might be distant cousins, but they are most decidedly not "mildly revamped" versions of the same thing.

--
rage, rage against the dying of the light
1. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by AmiMoJo · 2013-10-06 19:32 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Wireless charging is a really big deal too. It's the sort of thing that makes you think "how much easier can it be than just plugging a cable in" but when you have it you find really useful.
  I build a charging pad into my car holder so now I don't need to plug in any wires. Audio is bluetooth to the car stereo. No more USB cables trailing across the dash.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
2. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by spire3661 · 2013-10-06 19:52 · Score: 1
  
  I have had wireless charging on my Palm Pre for years, its ok but not all that.
  
  --
  Good-bye
3. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  the Nexus 5 (or whatever it’s going to be called) seems like a mildly revamped version of LG’s G2.
  No, it really doesn't. The two most-often mentioned features of the G2 are:
  a) The gorgeous 5.2" screen; and
  b) A 3000 mAh battery; and
  c) The rear-panel placement of the only buttons (power/volume), as opposed to the traditional volume rocker on the side that most smartphones have.
  This has none of those--it has a 4.95" screen and a 2300 mAh battery. And the buttons are laid out like a standard smartphone. Those things alone are significant alterations that make these phones different in the most visible and usable ways.
  The G2 also has a 13 megapixel rear camera; this has an 8 mp camera.
  The G2 also has a customized version of Android with knock-on and other features; the Nexus 5, presuming it follows the Nexus pattern, will run a standard Android OS and UI (and get faster OS updates).
  Without digging into it for more than 30 seconds, I see a phone with a different screen, different camera, different battery, different physical button layout, and different UI, and with significantly different physical properties (e.g. wireless charging on the Nexus)--these might be distant cousins, but they are most decidedly not "mildly revamped" versions of the same thing.
  Bigger battery, 'Gooooorgeous' 5.2" screen, 'traditional smartphone' buttons... dude, it's a telephone, not a woman.
4. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 20:53 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Indeed wireless is a big deal. Wasted energy, interferences, slower speeds, lack of security between non flashable devices, etc, etc.
5. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 21:39 · Score: 0
  
  The difference in screen size (diagonal) is exactly 1/4 ". That's rather small.
6. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 23:07 · Score: 0
  
  What car charging pad did you buy? I can't find a suitable one
7. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-10-07 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  I have had wireless charging on my Palm Pre for years, its ok but not all that.
  I've got it for our Touchpad that got converted to Android. The kids previously broke the charging port on a Nook Color. The microUSB connector is a nasty little lever due to its thinness and length.
  I'll bet old people with arthritic joints (much less Parkinson's) don't appreciate MicroUSB charging either.
  Now, then, can I get one big mat for all the family gizmos instead of a dozen individual charging mats?
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
8. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by danbob999 · 2013-10-07 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  But the Nexus 5 will probably be half the price of the G2. And run stock Android and receive updates.
9. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 01:11 · Score: 0
  
  I'll bet old people with arthritic joints (much less Parkinson's) don't appreciate MicroUSB charging either.
  I'm sure you're right about that. You don't even have to be "old" - just "getting old" to appreciate the wireless charging. For example, at 46, my eyes can't figure out which way the damn connector goes in without grabbing a pair of reading glasses (those magnifiers you see at the drugstore). With the wireless charging I just place it on the charger and go. No more fiddling with the connector, cursing, grabbing the glasses, etc. I have it on the Nexus 4 and the Nexus 7 (2013 edition). Works great.
10. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  Apart from wasted energy from the wireless charging. All those other are properties of a wireless phone. The alternative is to have a wired phone. I suggest that you get one.
11. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by pthisis · 2013-10-07 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  But the Nexus 5 will probably be half the price of the G2. And run stock Android and receive updates.
  The last sentence is why I wrote "the Nexus 5, presuming it follows the Nexus pattern, will run a standard Android OS and UI (and get faster OS updates)".
  I'm not making a case for either phone being better, simply saying that the idea that one is a mildly tweaked version of the other is laughable.
  
  --
  rage, rage against the dying of the light
12. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  This might be an attempt to shit on the Nexus brand to make way for the Moto X generations. It looks like the ugliest Nexus so far - really blocky. Whereas the new Moto X seems to have the sleekness of the Nexus' of old. Also, I hear it might be made of plastic. They should stick with glass or aluminium. Plastic with that feature list doesn't set this phone apart enough. But of course it will be much cheaper off contract on Google Play which will be it's selling point. It will still do well.
13. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 02:04 · Score: 0
  
  5.2" screen, insuring you carry a purse or wear really fat pants.
14. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by Nexus7 · 2013-10-07 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  I hope it isn't a mildly revamped G2! The G@ has a below-average loudspeaker, and call me odd, but I consider a loud speaker to be essential in a phone. I find most reviews of smartphones useless, because they spend over half the time on the camera, software features, plastic vs metal, etc. and maybe one if that, on call quality, and except for 1 or 2 publications, never bother to put a sound meter near the thing. FYI, GSMArena, for one, actually measure the volume.
15. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by LanMan04 · 2013-10-07 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with wireless charging is that a single charge pad costs $50+. A usb cable + wall wart costs $5.
  
  --
  With the first link, the chain is forged.
16. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by Nemyst · 2013-10-07 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  And before we go overboard, that leak is a draft. There are a few glaringly obvious issues with it, such as listing Bluetooth 3 (instead of 4) and the exact same dimensions as the Nexus 4, as pointed out on here. While I doubt the screen size or the button placement would change, it's plausible that the battery size could.
17. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by Entropius · 2013-10-07 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  I have a Galaxy Nexus, and the call quality is *garbage*. Voices often manage to be both loud enough that they provoke nonlinear garbage from the speaker *and* drowned out by background noise at the same time!
18. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by Applekid · 2013-10-07 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Bigger battery, 'Gooooorgeous' 5.2" screen, 'traditional smartphone' buttons... dude, it's a telephone, not a woman.
  Clearly. I won't look at a woman that doesn't have at least a 6" screen.
  
  --
  More Twoson than Cupertino
19. Re: This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by AvitarX · 2013-10-07 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  I've lost 2 smart phones that were out of warranty but under contract due to the micro Ian port breaking, and a heartache speaker. I really wish they stuck with mini, but wireless will have to do.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
20. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by shellbeach · 2013-10-07 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Without digging into it for more than 30 seconds, I see a phone with a different screen, different camera, different battery, different physical button layout, and different UI, and with significantly different physical properties (e.g. wireless charging on the Nexus)--these might be distant cousins, but they are most decidedly not "mildly revamped" versions of the same thing.
  But the screen, camera, battery and buttons are all extras; the point is that at the core of both devices is the LG G2's mainboard with a Snapdragon 800 sitting on it. If I take my desktop box here at work and change the monitor, keyboard and mouse, it's still the same box, and that's pretty much how most of us are viewing the Nexus 5.
  I see this as a good thing, mind you. LG does the low-level stuff well; they just have no idea how to make an interface (either physical or graphical) to save themselves. Mate LG's tech with Google's design sense and you've got what should be the best phone of the year.
21. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  "(and get faster OS updates)" - Notable exception being those built buy Samsung and distributed outside of the US where updates are either delayed by 6 months or never arrive.
22. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by pthisis · 2013-10-07 06:00 · Score: 2
  
  I hope it isn't a mildly revamped G2! The G@ has a below-average loudspeaker
  There are a lot of decent criticisms of the G2. The SlideAside is pointless (and doesn't work with a ton of common Android apps), the screen is too big for some people, the buttons on the back are something you can adjust to but they're needlessly quirky and more prone to accidentally being pressed in your pocket than side-buttons are. I'm still not sold on having the headphone jack on the bottom instead of the top.
  But the speakers? The G2 has virtually perfect frequency response and a very low distortion level according to:
  GSMArena, for one, actually measure the volume. ...who also measure frequency response and other components of sound quality.
  They note that the speaker on the G2 is better than average sound quality, though average volume-wise. There's absolutely nothing in their tests indicating a below-average speaker:
  http://www.gsmarena.com/lg_g2-review-982p8.php
  
  The LG G2 showed nicely clean output in both parts of our traditional audio quality test. The smartphone got pretty decent scores, but was led down by its volume levels, which were only average.
  The scores stay close to perfect even when you plug in a pair of headphones. The stereo crosstalk worsens a bit but the rest of the readings are virtually unaffected (frequency response actually improves a bit). Unfortunately, the volume levels remained just as uninspiring.
  Which seems like they're heavily over-weighting volume--unless you're hearing impaired enough that you normally max the volume on your handset, then maximum volume is far less important than the audio quality. But even by their weighting, it's still good audio quality with average volume level.
  
  --
  rage, rage against the dying of the light
23. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by Nexus7 · 2013-10-07 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  The sections you quote are for music. Calls are far more important to me, and for this:
  LG G2 65.7 62.2 66.2 Below Average
24. Re: This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by pthisis · 2013-10-07 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  No, the sections I quoted are for the built in headset speaker used for calls. The numbers are all above average for call quality and average for volume. I'm not sure how their subjective judgement said "below average", given that every single one of the objective measurements was average or above. It's not the loudest or best speaker out there, for sure, but it's better than most.
  
  --
  rage, rage against the dying of the light
25. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by 3.5+stripes · 2013-10-07 20:36 · Score: 1
  
  Get the HTC One and be quiet then..
  
  --
  
  He tried to kill me with a forklift!
26. Re:This is not at all a mildly revamped G2 by Stuarticus · 2013-10-08 22:06 · Score: 1
  
  If you're using the speaker for anything other than a ringing sound to notify you of phone calls or messages then you are doing it wrong.
  
  --
  If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
"longevity"??? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 19:04 · Score: 1

"but don’t expect a huge boost in longevity"
I think he means "battery life"... "longevity' isn't really appropriate in this context.
1. Re:"longevity"??? by bluefoxlucid · 2013-10-06 23:00 · Score: 1
  
  Interestingly, I have a 3800mAh in my Google Galaxy Nexus. With NFC.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
Confused about the numbers by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 19:16 · Score: 0, Troll

How is 2,300mAh better than 2100mAh? Isn't that 2097,7mAh less?
1. Re:Confused about the numbers by AuMatar · 2013-10-06 19:27 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  In the US, a comma is used to separate millions, thousands, hundreds, etc. A period is used to separate whole numbers from decimals. So 2,300 is 200 more than 2100.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
2. Re:Confused about the numbers by Shimbo · 2013-10-06 21:03 · Score: 2
  
  Properly, one should be using (thin) spaces with SI units; I would link to NIST but they seem to have taken the day off.
3. Re:Confused about the numbers by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 22:45 · Score: 0
  
  Interestingly, the BIPM is still up. I guess their government is still open.
  http://www.bipm.org/en/si/
Does not make sence by giorgist · 2013-10-06 19:17 · Score: 2

It mentions Bluetooth 4 (page 11) as well as 3 (page 8). It has an entry Java "Android do not support JAVA" (Page 11)
1. Re:Does not make sence by AmiMoJo · 2013-10-06 23:25 · Score: 2
  
  Android doesn't support Java. Java is not just the language, it's the APIs as well. Android's version isn't complete or fully compatible with Java, and isn't called Java, and you can't run a Java .jar file on Android.
  From the consumer's point of view their Java apps won't work on Android.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
2. Re:Does not make sence by CastrTroy · 2013-10-07 02:56 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It would be more correct to say that Java doesn't support Android. Nobody is stopping Oracle from making a version of the JVM that runs on Android. It's not like a walled garden with IOS. I'm sure that with all the emulators on the Google Play store, that Google probably wouldn't care if Oracle put up a working version of the JVM on the store.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
3. Re:Does not make sence by Kielistic · 2013-10-07 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  It would be more correct to say that Java doesn't support Android.
  Why would I try to run Android in Java? Stop being obtusely pedantic. Nobody would say "Java doesn't support Android" when what they mean is "Android doesn't support execution of Java programs".
4. Re:Does not make sence by CastrTroy · 2013-10-07 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Android has now control as to whether or not they support execution of Java programs. Unless you want to task them with writing their own JVM. The reason that Java programs don't run under Android is the same reason that MS SQL Server doesn't run on Android. (Java Applications)/(MS SQL Server) doesn't run on Android because (Oracle)/Microsoft) hasn't ported it yet. Android is an operating system. It makes no choices about which applications you choose to run on it. Windows doesn't run Java applications either. Unless you go and download a JVM from Oracle. If Oracle provided a version of the JVM that ran on Android, you could run Java applications.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
5. Re:Does not make sence by exomondo · 2013-10-07 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not going to suggest GP's explanation is ideal but when you are dealing with explaining the extremely confusing "Android programs are written in Java but Java programs don't run on Android" issue to people, being overly pedantic is probably for the best.
We need more memory by ZDroid · 2013-10-06 19:20 · Score: 5, Informative

The most of Android users captures high-res photos and high-res videos, downloads movies etc. That things waste memory very easily.
Here is no 64 GB version, and N5 lacks MicroSD card slot, like the most of new phones.
1. Re:We need more memory by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 21:22 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  It's hard to spy on your locally stored content. Why not upload you geotagged videos and pictures to the cloud so we can send you targetted advertising?
2. Re:We need more memory by gbjbaanb · 2013-10-06 21:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  more than that, if I want to transfer a few gig of music or movies to my phone, its much easier to slip the sd card out and put it in a reader on my PC. Or better - swap with a sd card that already has the required files present (ie I have 2).
  the other thing that I always worry about is the battery. I have had to reboot my old Galaxy S1 by removing the battery before now. What do I do if it really goes belly up and needs a hard reset?
3. Re:We need more memory by CadentOrange · 2013-10-06 22:23 · Score: 1
  
  more than that, if I want to transfer a few gig of music or movies to my phone, its much easier to slip the sd card out and put it in a reader on my PC.
  Really? I've always copied them via the network, either from the phone (loads of decent file browsers out there that support SMB, FTP, SFTP) or from the computer (run an FTP server on your phone). The only time I use the cable is when I have to charge my phone.
4. Re:We need more memory by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 22:37 · Score: 0
  
  Hold down the power button long enough and it resets. That's how it works on the Nexus 4. It appears to be done in hardware, because it works everywhere.
5. Re:We need more memory by AmiMoJo · 2013-10-06 23:27 · Score: 1
  
  Google want everything to be in the cloud. Any photos or video you take can be automatically uploaded to your Google account, so there is no need to keep them on your phone long term. That's why they don't bother with massive amounts of storage or example - they expect the phone's memory to be mostly used for apps, and some temporary data that gets moved to the cloud.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
6. Re:We need more memory by gbjbaanb · 2013-10-06 23:37 · Score: 1
  
  I can transfer them over wifi, but its much quicker to do it with the card directly connected to a card reader. ... is what I meat to say.
7. Re:We need more memory by Nemyst · 2013-10-07 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  Amusing. This is the first Nexus since the S which has doubled storage capacity across the board, and yet the exact same complaints are being levelled against it.
8. Re:We need more memory by Entropius · 2013-10-07 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  I use my storage for things like music. Sure, there are cloud music services, but that only makes sense when pulling things down from the cloud:
  1) is possible everywhere
  2) doesn't drain the battery
9. Re:We need more memory by ZDroid · 2013-10-07 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yea. Apple forced Google to remove MicroSD card slot, to make Android phones more like iPhone.
10. Re:We need more memory by blackjackshellac · 2013-10-07 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  And that's why, as much as I like the nexus phones otherwise, I won't be buying a nexus phone. I want 64GB min, or 32GB and an external storage slot. I'm waiting for fairphone to arrive in North America right now.
  
  --
  Salut,
  Jacques
11. Re:We need more memory by shellbeach · 2013-10-07 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  Well, 32Gb isn't exactly acres of space these days, but I think it'll be enough for me. 16Gb definitely isn't anymore.
  I do wish they'd use SD cards (ext-formatted, of course) mainly because I'd know at least some of my data was safe if my phone ever died or bricked. But I realise it's never going to happen with a Nexus, and I'm more-or-less happy to pay that price.
12. Re:We need more memory by lexman098 · 2013-10-07 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  They have hardware reset features that usually involve holding down a couple buttons at once. This is captured by the hardware directly and works even if the phone is soft-bricked.
13. Re:We need more memory by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  What do I do if it really goes belly up and needs a hard reset?
  Hold the power button down for 10 seconds and pray that there's a dedicated circuit to reset and not software.
14. Re:We need more memory by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-11 11:06 · Score: 0
  
  To be around 300$/300€ you cannot ask more, Nexus is a mid budget device with high budget specs.
FM Radio by Utopia · 2013-10-06 19:32 · Score: 2

Interestingly, the manual radio says "FM Radio - Yes".
I don't recollect a Nexus device with a functioning FM Radio.
1. Re:FM Radio by Sinical · 2013-10-06 20:28 · Score: 2
  
  The Nexus One has FM radio hardware (accessible if you install Cyanogen -- I am not sure if any stock Android builds enabled support). I kept mine after getting a Nexus 4 for this very reason.
2. Re:FM Radio by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 21:03 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  One of the radio chips in these phones does FM because it was a throwaway feature, "Hey, since we've done all this already we could build an FM radio, it'd add like 1% to the transistor budget" "Sure, we'll add it to the feature list". So CyanogenMod enables that, because why not. In some jurisdictions being able to receive FM radio is a legal problem (no, that doesn't make any sense, why would it need to?), so since FM radio is rarely a deal breaker for people buying phones the stock Android leaves it disabled.
  This happened in the late MP3 days as well, cheap Far Eastern suppliers would build a generic chipset that played say six audio formats, supported five different common models of LCD panel, and so on, and they'd throw in FM radio because it was easy. But then brand name companies would ask for a firmware version that removed the FM radio and added their branding because in one country they ship to FM radios are a legal problem and they'd rather not have two variants of "their" MP3 player.
  So you'd be able to buy like a Hitachi MP3 player for $20 that claimed to play MP3, WAV and WMA and nothing else, but if you flashed it with firmware from the supposedly unrelated $15 MP3 player from some Taiwanese novelty electronics firm you've never heard of you'd get all the same plus Ogg Vorbis, AU and AAC, an FM radio, a three level backlight instead of two levels, but now your volume buttons work upside down...
3. Re: FM Radio by Sigg3.net · 2013-10-06 21:57 · Score: 2
  
  So what you're saying is that FM was like the Bluetooth of the 90s/00s. Everywhere and mostly useless. But neat.
  
  --
  Defining Statistics and Social Research
4. Re:FM Radio by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 23:21 · Score: 1
  
  Nexus will never have a usable FM Radio, just like it will never have a microSD card slot. After the Apple lawsuit, Google revamped the Nexus line as to not (knowingly) infringe on others' patents. The Galaxy Nexus was the first phone designed with that mindset, although Google later had to retroactively remove features on that phone to stay compliant. Thus, you see no FM Radio (Sony patent) even though the chipset is available, no microSD card slot (Sandisk patent + Microsoft patent for FAT), and use of either open codecs (.ogg Vorbis for all sound files, native FLAC support) or Google owned codecs (WebM) on the pure Nexus devices. Google will have no problem selling out either way.
5. Re:FM Radio by AmiMoJo · 2013-10-06 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of manufacturers disable FM because they want you use to services like Google Music or Spotify. Often the phone comes pre-loaded with a music streaming app.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
6. Re:FM Radio by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  Why? FM sucks. I listen to Sirius, Pandora, LastFM on mine. People whine about data, but listening to Sirius all day eats less than 200mb a day.
7. Re:FM Radio by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 00:52 · Score: 0
  
  No, FM radio was specifically disabled on devices so that you could not record the digital broadcasts. Period.
8. Re:FM Radio by afidel · 2013-10-07 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  200MB*30 days ~= 6GB = 1GB more than almost any plan available in the US (unless you're on a $80+/line plan with Sprint you'll get throttled at either 2.5GB or 5GB most Verizon and AT&T plans are similar)
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
9. Re:FM Radio by Cederic · 2013-10-07 04:31 · Score: 2
  
  How quaint. I have unlimited 3G data.
  Then again, I do have to pay Â£16/month and despite the unlimited texts, unlimited same-network calls and unlimited landline calls I do only get 2500 'free' minutes.
  I'd switch to a cheaper provider but I'm on a one-month rolling contract and I've already paid for next month.
10. Re:FM Radio by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  Sirius is worse quality than actual FM.
Every Slashdot post is monitored by the new Stasi. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 22:35 · Score: 0

Be very careful what you say, because ten years from now, you may sorely regret it.
Verizon? by Hrrrg · 2013-10-06 22:45 · Score: 1

The killer feature for me would be that it was available on Verizon. Can anyone tell from this documentation?
1. Re:Verizon? by NJRoadfan · 2013-10-06 23:04 · Score: 1
  
  If the phone has a CDMA 800/1900 and LTE 700 (Band 13) radio, than yes.
2. Re:Verizon? by h4rr4r · 2013-10-07 01:25 · Score: 2
  
  I hope not.
  You cannot get a nexus device on verizon. The galaxy nexus is not a real nexus, nor would any future device. Mine is still on 4.2.2 as of right now. I will be leaving verizon over this and I suggest you do too.
"sealed" battery by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 22:47 · Score: 0

I assume that means non-user-replaceable. People need to stop buying devices with non-replaceable batteries, or that's all that will be available before long.
Given that Lithium Ion loses capacity over time AND with discharge cycles, it is essential that batteries be replaceable to prolong the lifetime of the device without having to pay out the nose for the mfg to replace the battery. Also, this allows easy swapping of batteries in the field if you have to be away from a charger for an extended period, and it often goes hand in hand with being able to swap micro-SD cards.
Just stop buying them, and mfg will get the message.
1. Re:"sealed" battery by jcdr · 2013-10-06 23:43 · Score: 2
  
  You can find how to service the battery at the end of the manual, page 272. Basically in involve the back cover, 6 screws and 2 connectors. It's not that difficult but certainly most of users will be afraid to do this alone. But I think that the biggest problem will be to buy the battery part at a fair price 3 or 4 years from now.
  Like for the standard USB power adapter, a standard range of phone batteries could be an advantage in the long term for the end users.
Maybe that's why it's labeled "draft" by Overzeetop · 2013-10-06 22:51 · Score: 1

Amazing that it isn't completely finished and coordinated, yet, huh?

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
OIS by Lumpy · 2013-10-07 00:16 · Score: 1, Insightful

"there’s no mention of that crazy Nikon tech, though"
You do realize that Canon invented it and Nikon copied it right?
Canon OIS is still the single most superior OIS out there. Nikon is good but nothing like what the Canon system can do, mostly because they have nearly a decade on them in R&D.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
1. Re:OIS by Entropius · 2013-10-07 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  I dunno, have you used Nikon's newer stuff? I shoot birds with the new Nikon 80-400. I can get sharp shots handheld down to 1/40 sec most of the time and 1/20 sec much of the time. (This is on a highly-demanding sensor, 24MP DX, and on truly static targets; these speeds aren't practical for actual birds.) Can you do that with Canon's new IS? I don't know; i only know the performance of the older IS on my father's 100-400.
  Another extremely good IS system is the sensor-shift IS used by Olympus in the E-M5 and E-M1.
2. Re:OIS by Orwells · 2013-10-07 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  I believe you're misinformed. "Nikon (produced the first optical stabilized lens, a 38-105 mm f/4-7.8 zoom built into the Nikon Zoom 700VR (US: Zoom-Touch 105 VR) camera in 1994)" (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibration_reduction). My understanding is that Nikon invented in-lens vibration reduction for use in their scopes. Canon licensed the technology from Nikon, and while Nikon was the first to sell a camera with the technology, Canon made it more ubiquitous and popularized it. (Sigma got sued for copying Nikon's designs.) Today, I don't think anyone but a fanboy would claim that Canon's image stabilization is significantly better than Nikon's. I would note that Tamron's is well regarded too.
3. Re:OIS by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  Canon started development of IS (Image Stabilizer) technology in 1980s and introduced EF75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM in 1995, the world's first interchangeable lens for 35mm SLR with a built-in image stabilizer.
  Nope and only a Nikon Fanboi would claim that the very limited Nikon VR is anywhere near Canon IS.
  I own a d5 MK II and a D800. so I actually know what I am talking about as I use both nearly daily. Betting you never even TOUCHED lenses from both that was anywhere near $1500 in price or higher.
4. Re:OIS by Lumpy · 2013-10-07 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  Their newer stuff is fantastic, but also the Canon newer stuff is as well the gap is closing incredibly fast.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Screen quality? by It's+the+tripnaut! · 2013-10-07 00:48 · Score: 1

The Nexus 4 had inferior color rendering to the LG Optimus G, even if the screen and GPUs of both phones are exactly the same. You had to root the N4 and recalibrate the colors just to get close to the rendering quality of the G2.

I hope Kitkat gives users the capability to calibrate color settings in the same manner that LG flat panel TV's can be calibrated.
obligatory xkcd by mevets · 2013-10-07 00:57 · Score: 1

http://xkcd.com/1235/
i'll play your game by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 01:16 · Score: 0

For every computer on the whole company? Seems inefficient.
Maybe they could set up a server that would look up DNS requests in its centralized hosts file.
1. Re:i'll play your game by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-08 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  Oh really? That would defeat the point of hosts files.
By 2016... by brian0918 · 2013-10-07 01:56 · Score: 1, Offtopic

What do you think will be the inception date for the Nexus-6 Android, and will it come with a built-in expiration date of a few years? Will you be able to jailbreak it, or is it not possible for the coding sequence to be revised once it's been established?
1. Re:By 2016... by Cederic · 2013-10-07 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  This is an excellent point. We need to petition Google to skip straight to the Nexus 7 just to avoid any confusion. Or mutinies in the off-world colonies.
2. Re:By 2016... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  Google has been trying to streamline the names to avoid confusing. Hopefully the Nexus 5 will continue to be the Nexus 5 for years to come, just like the Nexus 7 has 2 models 2012 and 2013.
  I think they are trying to keep the screen at about 5" which seems the sweet spot. 5" phone, 7" and 10" Tablet. I think this is why they lowered the screen to 4.97" (~5") so they can get the names on track. Coincidentally I figured Android 5.0 would also debut with the 5" Nexus 5 and really get everything on the same page. Or just name it 5" Nexus v5 w/ Android 5.0 (KitKat).
  Sadly it didn't take off.
Yes, but... by gr8_phk · 2013-10-07 02:10 · Score: 1

Does it support VP9 and/or HEVC in hardware?
Does it receive ATSC television signals?
Useable voice recognition?

Yawn, tell me when a device gets new capabilities rather than just larger numbers in front of "GB", "pixels", "inches", or "mAh".
No thanks by asm2750 · 2013-10-07 03:01 · Score: 1

I've had bad luck with LG products so I guess I'll take my money elsewhere or see if a google play version of the moto x comes out.
mass-storage or still mtp only? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-07 04:35 · Score: 0

What I (AC) would really like to know if it will support (again) mass-storage when connected by usb, as there's no good/reliable/working MTP support in Linux yet.
Same with every nexus device by lsatenstein · 2013-10-11 23:07 · Score: 1

Every Nexus device going back the very first has been an existing phone with a few minor upgrades at most and a different set of software installed. Why would anyone expect different this time? My only surprise is that Google hasn't started having their Motorola arm manufacture them yet. Probably due to not wanting to push OEMs to other options.
===
I suppose there are several reasons for going LG. One may be quality, (returns per 1000 phones), another, delivery timeframe, and cost of production and distribution.
That said, I have my experience with the Nexus 4. To get 24 hours+ use with the device, data and wifi must be disabled. As a "telephone only" device, it is as good as any other.
With data enabled, and not using data, the battery life is around 4 hours. With wifi only and not using wifi, battery life is about 5-6 hours. Obviously with both communications enabled, the phone battery lasts about 3.5 hours.
So, When I am idle with a few minutes to spare, I play freecell, which is a low-overhead app.
If you use it in the car, a car charger is advised.

--
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada