Slashdot Mirror


Overkill? LG Phone Has 2560x1440 Display, Laser Focusing

MojoKid (1002251) writes LG is probably getting a little tired of scraping for brand recognition versus big names like Samsung, Apple and Google. However, the company is also taking solace in the fact that their smartphone sales figures are heading for an all-time high in 2014, with an estimated 60 million units projected to be sold this year. LG's third iteration of their popular "G" line of flagship smartphones, simply dubbed the LG G3, is the culmination of all of the innovation the company has developed in previous devices to date, including its signature rear button layout, and a cutting-edge 5.5-inch QHD display that drives a resolution of 2560X1440 with a pixel density of 538 PPI. Not satisified with pixel overload, LG decide to equip their new smartphone with 'frickin' laser beams' to assist its 13MP camera in targeting subjects for auto-focus. The G3 performs well in the benchmarks with a Snapdragon 801 on board and no doubt its camera takes some great shots quickly and easily. However, it's questionable how much of that super high res 2560 display you can make use of on a 5.5-inch device.

122 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. I have an idea by slashmydots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I was the lead product designer, I'd take things in a new direction. I'd stop making low quality phones that freeze up constantly and break all the time. That might grab some market share.

    1. Re:I have an idea by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Funny

      That'll never work.

    2. Re:I have an idea by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Informative

      I own an LG phone. (Nexus 4). It never froze up or broke, in fact I like it a lot.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    3. Re:I have an idea by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      Whoosh. The target of the joke is Samsung.

    4. Re:I have an idea by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Its called the Nexus 5, and its been out for 8 months now.

    5. Re:I have an idea by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Normally poor quality isn't from the product designer, but some guy in middle management who want his bonus ships the product out before all the issues has been worked out. Then after he ships it out, factoring that they can fix the problems later on, then decides to move all the workforce onto an other project.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:I have an idea by gsslay · · Score: 1

      Isn't that exactly what LG have done?

  2. The target buyer for the new phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...will be someone who has really small fingers.

  3. Google Cardboard by The+Raven · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Google Cardboard, like the Oculus Rift, zooms in on the screen making some pixels very large. Perhaps this QHD resolution will look nicer than average when used as a Rift replacement? (note: I'm well aware that it will not actually be a good rift replacement, just that it's abnormally high pixel density could make a difference in extremely specific circumstances.)

    --
    "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
    1. Re:Google Cardboard by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      How accurate does Cardboard track head movement?
      Note that head displays have been done many times before over the past decades.
      The problem has always been motion sickness inducing head tracking, never the display technology.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:Google Cardboard by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Turning it on its side and putting it into the Google Cardboard (or similar) stereoptic holder gives you about a 1440x1250 display per eye. Looks right to me.

      Now if (as I suggested in the Cardboard item) they installed two cameras on the phone back, separated by about eye distance, you'd have a camera that could take and display stereoptic pictures and/or do augmented reality without losing the scene's depth.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    3. Re:Google Cardboard by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How accurate does Cardboard track head movement?

      That depends on your phone.

      It's not meant for playing games for hours. It just lets you actually experience this content that is meaningless without at least that much hardware. Well, supposedly. I frankly think that even without parallax correction, a user can get a lot out of using their phone as a window on another world, and I don't see any reason to restrict these supposedly three-dimensional experiences to people who have stereoscopic displays.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Google Cardboard by Lockdev · · Score: 1

      Not going to happen without some improvements in latency. The time it takes for the phone to capture the image, post process it, and throw it to the screen would be in the time range that's just enough to throw off your balance and probably make you sick.

  4. Embarrasment by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 5, Funny

    The principle reason to put 2560x1440 pixels on a phone is to further the embarrassment of monitor manufacturers who can only manage to get 1/4 of the pixels into a 19" screen.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:Embarrasment by MojoKid · · Score: 2

      HA! So true! And 4K desktop displays have a long way to go still as well.

    2. Re:Embarrasment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      With all that resolution, you could use Google to look up the difference between principle and principal.

    3. Re:Embarrasment by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The companies that are producing these incredibly pixel-dense phone screens are the same ones that are producing a lot of the panels for monitors. I think Samsung and LG are collectively responsible for about half of the global supply of LCD panels. A quick Google search shows that the top 4 companies make up roughly 80% - 85% of the market. They're probably perfectly happy making a healthy profit and not rocking the boat too much.

    4. Re:Embarrasment by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thats not fair. It just isnt.
      Your not nice.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    5. Re:Embarrasment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Agreed. My 8 year old laptop had a 17" display with 1920x1200 resolution, and when I finally had to get a new one, it was a 17" screen with "FULL HD!!" 1920x1080. *sigh*

    6. Re: Embarrasment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You did it again.

    7. Re: Embarrasment by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Funny

      wewsch

    8. Re:Embarrasment by jd2112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The principle reason to put 2560x1440 pixels on a phone is to further the embarrassment of monitor manufacturers who can only manage to get 1/4 of the pixels into a 19" screen.

      Monitor manufacturers like, LG?

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    9. Re:Embarrasment by marciot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The principle reason to put 2560x1440 pixels on a phone is to further the embarrassment of monitor manufacturers who can only manage to get 1/4 of the pixels into a 19" screen.

      We will soon be better off buying a smart phone and a Fresnel lens instead of desktop monitor and our computers will begin to look a lot like the ones in the movie Brazil.

    10. Re:Embarrasment by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      I have 2560x1600 on my desktop. Though it took me 30" to get that. If they can get 1080p (2k) in a 5.5", the 19" should be at 8k (or close to it), not less than the 5.5".

    11. Re:Embarrasment by ruir · · Score: 1

      Hey, you have got a "4K" UMC TV for 500 Euros! Pity it is only 4K interpolated pixels and the circuitry is only Full HD, but dont tell anyone ;)

    12. Re:Embarrasment by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually smaller screens are easier to produce. Larger screens need to be perfect over a much larger area. A defect will write off a much larger chunk of silicon and glass. There is more to go wrong too, since you need more track to wire up all those widely spaced pixels. Things like propagation delay start to become a major problem too, so you end up with multiple controllers for different parts of the screen.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:Embarrasment by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. My 8 year old laptop had a 17" display with 1920x1200 resolution, and when I finally had to get a new one, it was a 17" screen with "FULL HD!!" 1920x1080. *sigh*

      My decade old 18" viewable CRT does 1920x1440. So why should I be content to go down to 1080 height? That's a good chunk of screen real estate lost.
      Or go up to a monitor size that I can't use without moving my head?

      Desktop monitors need higher DPI, now. No, not touch screens or built-in USB hubs and card readers, but higher pixel densities. And zero-bad-subpixel warranties. Dear manufacturer, If you can't make a quality product, learn how to, and then come back.

    14. Re:Embarrasment by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      2560x1600 small screen = Occcculus!! Ok, not really (response time is important), but the potential is enticing :)

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    15. Re:Embarrasment by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Good thing that DisplayPort 1.3 supports a bandwidth of 32.4Gbps, and that the current DisplayPort 1.2 HBR2 that has been available since 2009 supports 17.28Gbps then, right?

      The bandwidth has been there for far better than 4K for quite some time. Oh, and HDMI sucks - you're paying for royalty-encumbered down-spec'd garbage from a litigious organization in comparison to the royalty-free VESA standard that is DisplayPort.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    16. Re:Embarrasment by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Some humour is just a little too subtle for some people. Even not very subtle humour.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    17. Re:Embarrasment by Smauler · · Score: 1

      You can get higher resolution 27" monitors relatively cheap, or at least cheaper than you probably bought your decade old monitor. If you can't bear to move your head, might I suggest you sit further away from your monitor?

    18. Re:Embarrasment by arth1 · · Score: 1

      If you can't bear to move your head, might I suggest you sit further away from your monitor?

      It's not so much "can't bear", as "can't".

      Moving a bigger monitor further back won't do the same. Think about it - do a projection from your eyes to the edges of a small monitor and further on until the diagonal is 50% larger. At that point, the monitor would be embedded deeply into the desk to get the same angles.

      No, a high DPI smaller IPS monitor would be welcome. The technology is clearly there.
      An angled monitor that tilts backwards like CRTs used to would also be welcome. Looking down is far less tiresome than looking up.

    19. Re:Embarrasment by cboslin · · Score: 1

      The principle reason to put 2560x1440 pixels on a phone is to further the embarrassment of monitor manufacturers who can only manage to get 1/4 of the pixels into a 19" screen.

      Damn right... when will I be able to buy a laptop with 2560x1440 resolution?

      What do you mean, I can buy one today? Shut yo mouf!

      I see your 2560x1400 and the cough, cough, only 4GB of RAM...seriously? Why have the better resolution and limit the amount of RAM (or disk space)?

      Instead I would rather have either 16GB (or 32GB) of triple channel memory (RAM) with only 1920x1080 pixels (here) granted it would be best to have both, my guess is companies like ZaReason will when customers clamor for it. The Verix-545 is one heck of a sweet laptop, especially for the price, works with your preferred version of Linux out of the box, everything, it just works. Love having 2 TB of storage too. No more limitations, except resolution, if you consider HD at 1920x1080 to be a limitiation that is.

      My only regret is that it does not have a 17", 19" or 21" laptop screen size. Granted I hook it to larger monitors to do work anyway. My future monitor will be a 60" LED 300hz LG TV. Have seen them in the stores on sale for $680, which is phenominal. My last LG was an LCD, 42" and cost over $1,000 on sale years ago.

      Best of all, by buying from a Linux vendor only, you are not limited to only MS Win8 via the proprietary hardware...no more blind alleys.

      With a LInux vendor, you can always buy a copy of Windows and run it, however the converse is not true, any hardware sold today that is meant for Windows 8 or 9, will *not* run Linux without paying for a Windows license, whether you need it or not.

      The only reason not to purchase from a Linux vendor is if you want to run Macintosh OS X, of course that Macbook Pro will cost you considerablly more for less bang...good machines those Apple Macs, just always expensive.

  5. What? by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If this were a certain other high end phone manufacturer, the media would be falling over itself to explain how these improvements mark a new era in phone technology.

    The improvements seem reasonable and unless they add excessively to the cost there's no reason to criticize them.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:What? by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The improvements seem reasonable and unless they add excessively to the cost there's no reason to criticize them.

      As long as they don't shorten battery life, of course. That is still the Achilles heel of mobile devices, after all, and all those pixels likely increase the amount of processing needed to control them.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  6. Give it a name by clickety6 · · Score: 2

    Galaxy, iPhone, Nexus and....G3.

    If you want recognition, give it a name - preferably a cool name, but at the very least something people can pronounce without sounding like they're playing Battleships.

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  7. Rangefinder handy for more than camera focusing by GGardner · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't know how accurate the laser would be for general purpose rangefinding, but if this device were available to apps in general, not just the camera, I could imagine all kind of interesting new apps one could develop.

    1. Re:Rangefinder handy for more than camera focusing by davydagger · · Score: 1

      very acurate actually.

      There are all kinds of LRFs on the market, and tanks and other military equipment use them.

      https://www.google.com/search?q=laser+range+finder&client=firefox-a&hs=lCg&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=np&prmd=ivnsp&source=lnms&tbm=shop&sa=X&ei=71mwU_3NG6fJsQS1woGQBA&ved=0CAgQ_AU

    2. Re:Rangefinder handy for more than camera focusing by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed. I do architectural work, including taking measurements of existing buildings. If I could use this to get a point cloud of a room it would be amazing. I'd be willing to start programming again if it meant being able to access even rudimentary data. While high accuracy is probably not in this, even +/-3" would be good for small places (up to, say 20-25 feet).

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:Rangefinder handy for more than camera focusing by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Yeah when I point my phone at something I want it to tell me how far away it is and the surface temperature and all sorts of good things!

    4. Re:Rangefinder handy for more than camera focusing by ruir · · Score: 1

      You have been able to do this for ages with a Lensatic Compass

  8. Re:laser beam focus? sounds harmful... by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 1

    laser bean for focusing the object for auto detection? will that do harm to our skin,eye,body? radiation is not good to health, now the laser beam, really?

    It's true, the combination of dangerous radiation and now us all being exposed to lasers at the same time will mutate our DNA and turn us into lizard people. And that's what THEY want.

    --
    This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
  9. Specs On Paper & Buyer Mindset by Scot+Seese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is simply a stats arms race.

    Seeing how Android flagship makers are using someone else's OS and app ecosystem, the only two places they can differentiate their products are through custom OS skinning (horrible) and product tech specs.

    Considering how many Android users tend to be the "build your own PC" crowd who are hardcore gadget people, the specs bloat appeals to them.

    Meanwhile, Apple is selling a smartphone with a tiny less-than-HD screen, a processor that toddles along at a whisker over 1 GHz and a tiny 1400 MaH battery, and they're doing quite nicely for themselves.

    "Purpose Built" vs. "Specs in a Box" ?

    --
    THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
    1. Re:Specs On Paper & Buyer Mindset by rmstar · · Score: 1

      This is simply a stats arms race.

      one that seems overheating, too. You can buy quite well speced smart phones (way better than an iPhone, as you have correctly noted) for a very decent prize. Manufacturers seem to be running out of ideas on how to get traction in this market, so this is what they come up with: over-the-top-specs.

      A market full of smartphones that can't find a way to differentiate themselves from each other seems to me like a market ready for collapse.

    2. Re:Specs On Paper & Buyer Mindset by jareth-0205 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Considering how many Android users tend to be the "build your own PC" crowd who are hardcore gadget people, the specs bloat appeals to them.

      Oh... bullshit. There were almost 6 times as many Android devices sold last quarter than iOS. How are we still propagating the "Android is for geeks" line?

      Meanwhile, Apple is selling a smartphone with a tiny less-than-HD screen, a processor that toddles along at a whisker over 1 GHz and a tiny 1400 MaH battery, and they're doing quite nicely for themselves.

      Depends on how you look at it, in the States yes, but worldwide no, and Apple are rather in danger of getting left behind when horesepower does matter. Android isn't standing still, optimisations like ART may well give another speed bump. Apple make nice devices, but they're not immune to performance, and that'll get acknowledged eventually in the same way that we were told for years how the Power architecture was just as good as x86... until they switched.

    3. Re:Specs On Paper & Buyer Mindset by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      534 ppi is getting close to the 600 dpi used for print. There is a good reason for using 600 dpi in print. At normal reading distances text looks nice and crisp. We are still have a little way to go before resolution increases become meaningless.

      As for the iPhone, the CPU simply takes a different approach to the ones used in other phones. It is rather complex and gets more done per cycle. Other designs are simpler which allows for a higher clock rate, so performance ends up being broadly similar. The latter design has the advantage that it is cheaper, even if you have 4 high performance and 4 low power cores on the same chip.

      The iPhone screen is limited by iOS apps targeting specific resolutions. In order to keep all the older apps looking good they need to exactly double the resolution every time, which means the next step is 2264x1280. Panels capable of that are only now becoming available.

      The iPhone battery is limited by the laws of physics. You can't make a higher capacity lithium polymer cell in the available space. One of the advantages of a bigger screen is that the increase in battery capacity more than outweighs the extra power needed to drive it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Specs On Paper & Buyer Mindset by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Makers are coming up with all kinds of choices. Over the top specs, great value entry levelop devices, long life phones, dual and triple SIM, special purpose devices. It is amazing. Let us not complain that at a billion units a year there are too many choices, and they all work together.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    5. Re:Specs On Paper & Buyer Mindset by symbolset · · Score: 1

      That was one billion unique users accessing the Play store. Some people have multiple devices. Some people's Android devices don't access the Play store - notably Amazon devices and devices sold in China, and much of India. Two years is a long time. That would include the SGS 3 as well. It turns out that about one billion Android devices were sold just in 2013.

      But what of it?. Does it offend you that some people prefer a more economical device? That not everyone feels spending $700 a year on a phone is a priority?

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    6. Re:Specs On Paper & Buyer Mindset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is a good reason for using 600 dpi in print. At normal reading distances text looks nice and crisp

      It might have something to do with halftone printing....600 dpi in print is not the same as 600 dpi in lcd panels. It's even more complicated than that because often times there's only 2 subpixels per pixel, (i think AMOLED displays are like this), so the DPI count should really be measured differently.

    7. Re: Specs On Paper & Buyer Mindset by maccodemonkey · · Score: 1

      The "Apple ships and underpowered processed" gets an ehhh from me.

      It's clocked low, but it's a 64 but processor with many branching features from desktops.

      It may be slower clocked but it punches well above it's weight class. Which is usually missed because most PC kiddies only look at clock instead of benchmarks, and think 64 bit is only something that let's you use a lot of RAM, and don't really understand things like processor features.

    8. Re:Specs On Paper & Buyer Mindset by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      But what of it?. Does it offend you that some people prefer a more economical device? That not everyone feels spending $700 a year on a phone is a priority?

      It's a weird compulsion to have their tribe be first. The reason I always find most amusing is "Apple make all the profit from smartphones", like that's a positive thing. It's like, er, guys, you know they are making all that profit from *you*? That if they make so much money it suggests their product is overpriced?

    9. Re:Specs On Paper & Buyer Mindset by horza · · Score: 2

      RISC is not worse as a general purpose computer. They do not only offer gains in specific problem domains, they are a trade-off that are complementary to CISC. If storage is limited, or you have a very slow bottleneck getting to the CPU then CISC might be better. Generally RISC is better as single-cycle instructions means it is easier to parallise instructions and less expensive for branch prediction misses.

      Most CISC instruction sets are reduced to RISC micro-code within modern processors. Take a look at the silicon for any x86 CPU these days. This translator takes most of the transistors and consumes most of the power. It also makes them more expensive than RISC, which is why RISC is used in nearly every single mobile phone. Both Apple and LG use the ARM RISC instruction set for their CPU, AFAIK.

      However what you mean by CPU is actually the SoC (System on a Chip), which is effectively a computer on a chip. It integrates a lot of other specialist functions onto the chip such as graphics (GPU) and the latest 5S has hardware image processor built in. The bonus is reduced production cost and bottleneck. The penalty is reduced upgradability. The Apple chips are made by Samsung so I doubt they have anything Samsung doesn't know about on there.

      Phillip.

    10. Re:Specs On Paper & Buyer Mindset by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Considering how many Android users tend to be the "build your own PC" crowd who are hardcore gadget people, the specs bloat appeals to them.

      I'm a PC builder, and have been for over 20+ years. My current rig is tuned and tweaked as needed or desired to maximize as much performance as I can without sacrificing stability. That said, I leave all that to the PC. For my cell, I stick with iPhone. First and foremost, I want a phone to be a phone with the smart function secondary. I don't want to trace battery usage issues, app crashes, compatibility, or other odd issues. My phone is tantamount to my lifeline to the world. The Android platform is a motley lump of specs, custom OS GUIs, apps, and quality that I'm DONE with it. Android is DEAD TO ME. If iPhone goes to shit, well, fuck it, I might as well get a flip phone at that point.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  10. Re:laser beam focus? sounds harmful... by bswarm · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be a shame if the voltage regulator failed and overdrive the lasers? Zap!

  11. Re:laser beam focus? sounds harmful... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    And where are our ancestors now? They're dead, that's where. AC is right, radiation is lethal!

  12. Probably not by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Probably not, given that most reviewers tend to focus on technical specs or other flashy points after spending perhaps a week with the device before moving on to something else. A lot of consumers are going to buy whatever costs them the least, even if they still end up paying the same ridiculous amount every month for a contract. Even then, a lot of them will take whatever the sales droid pushes on them.

    When Google still owned Motorola they tried to make some quality designs that had a lot more polish than the typical Android phone, but the sales didn't follow because it didn't have the bells and whistles that attract tech geeks or the type of people who fill buy based on some shiny, new feature. Similarly, none of the sales people were pushing it for any reason (usually some kind of kickback^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsales incentive) and so sales were poor and Google ended up dumping Motorola because they couldn't make a profit with the company.

    That and if they make a quality device that lasts for three years, they can't sell you a new phone after two. Why do you think so many of the manufacturers and carriers stop providing Android updates even though the device could easily support them or a different version of the essentially the same hardware is getting the update?

    1. Re:Probably not by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When Google still owned Motorola they tried to make some quality designs that had a lot more polish than the typical Android phone, but the sales didn't follow because it didn't have the bells and whistles that attract tech geeks

      Perhaps part of the problem was that (prior to Google ownership) Motorola had already put off many of the geeks by producing the most locked-down phones of any Android manufacturer.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:Probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Motorola has actually seen a large amount of success with the Moto G (and is trying to expand further into the lower end of the market with the Moto E). http://www.phonearena.com/news/The-Moto-G-is-the-most-successful-Motorola-smartphone-of-all-time_id53190

    3. Re:Probably not by nadaou · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Moto G is selling like hot cakes, and rightly so.

      Just maybe not in the US, but India and friends are a bigger market, at the G's lower price. With the self-inflicted implosion of Nokia a big gap in the market opened up over there. And it's a new market not an already saturated one.

      Google got the patent portfolio, which was what they were really after. Hardware isn't their core business so of course they'd move that part of the operation on at the first opportunity.

      --
      ~.~
      I'm a peripheral visionary.
    4. Re:Probably not by GuB-42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When Google still owned Motorola they tried to make some quality designs that had a lot more polish than the typical Android phone.

      I don't consider phones without user replaceable batteries "quality design". For real quality oriented design, the goal should be "as long as a network exists". And considering that batteries are expected to last for about 3 years, they make for an obvious planned obsolescence.
      My old Nexus One is still in use today( although not my me and with a new battery) and there is no reason to dump it as it still works as well as it did when I bought it. The 2 or even 3 year smartphone is a pure fabrication. For normal (non-geek) people, keeping a smartphone for 5-10 years should be the norm.

    5. Re:Probably not by BillX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Still does. I just bought, and then returned, a Moto X after discovering that Motorola's "unlock your bootloader" page is a sham. Tried it on a brand-new, retail, unlocked device and got "Your device does not qualify for bootloader unlocking" . The better part of an hour going round in circles with their tech support and they are unable (or unwilling) to even state the criteria that would, theoretically, make a device "qualify".

      (An aside: While most companies might claim unlocking or rooting a device "could" void the warranty, it's usually with a wink and a nudge as long as the device is factory-restored before RMA'ing or at least not obviously bricked. A couple have software tamper flags that can likewise be reset. Motorola, on the other hand, uses the device serial # to generate and return - by email - a bootloader unlock code, and immediately blacklists the device for warranty service the moment they do so, whether you actually use the code or not.)

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
    6. Re:Probably not by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I doubt it. Aside from the recent towelroot, samsung phones are locked down these days on verizon and AT&T, yet there doesn't seem to be an explosion of people buying unsubsidized phones.

  13. Wait for tha Apple zealots... by bogaboga · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...they'll say something to the effect:

    "I don't care, Retina Display is better."

    1. Re:Wait for tha Apple zealots... by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2

      "And a 4" screen is the optimal size... right up until this Fall when Apple releases the iPhone 6!"

    2. Re:Wait for tha Apple zealots... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      ...they'll say something to the effect:

      "I don't care, Retina Display is better."

      Just wait until you experience Apple's new "Eustachion Tube"[tm] audio, it's better than all the things that were ever better before.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    3. Re:Wait for tha Apple zealots... by Tough+Love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't remember that. But I do remember a number of Adroid vendors introducing displays with even higher PPI, and I do remember Apple losing control of the tablet market after introducing a product that had quadruple pixel count as essentially its only improvement, while regressing in battery life and weight.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    4. Re:Wait for tha Apple zealots... by Qbertino · · Score: 1

      ...they'll say something to the effect:
      "I don't care, Retina Display is better."

      I hate to break it to you and I'm certainly not and Apple Zeolot - my phone is an HTC Desire HD which I happen to be quite happy with - but the retina display actually *is* better, compared to the G3, if not perhaps in size. It has a wider viewing angle and a higher brightness range. Both only slightly, but noticable under certain conditions. How do I know? Just saw a detailed video review on the LG G3.

      Given the choice between 400dpi and 538dpi with slightly less brighness and slightly tighter viewing angle I'd take the latter. I bet that goes for most people here.

      My 2 cents.

      --
      We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    5. Re:Wait for tha Apple zealots... by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      Apple was late with "retina" because Android vendors already had 800x480 while Apple was at 480x320. Apple only took the resolution lead for a short while. Then Android vendors came out with 1280x720 phones.

  14. A koan for LG by kruach+aum · · Score: 2

    I do not eat with scalpel and fork.

  15. Re:laser beam focus? sounds harmful... by TheLink · · Score: 1

    Wonder how well the laser works through glass or plastic windows, or other common transparent stuff you might want to take pictures through.

    --
  16. Re:laser beam focus? sounds harmful... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    laser bean

    the photonic flatulence can be a problem

    suggest non-flammable cheese if possible

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  17. Re:laser beam focus? sounds harmful... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wonder if you can hack the laser rangefinder to work as a remote window listening device :)

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  18. Re:640KB ought to be enough for anyone by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    It seems that for a long time (say, up to 90s or 00s) it was believed that Gates said that 640KB thing. Then people did some research and didn't find any solid evidence of him saying that. So for some years people were reminded that "Gates never actually said that". But during the recent 5 years or so, talks about it being true after all have been coming back. I personally haven't followed the research much to know what's the current opinion. Hmm.

  19. Marketed for Asia? by chowdahhead · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The best argument I've read is that the complex characters in the Korean, Japanese, and Chinese languages really benefit from higher density screens, even over what the G2 was providing last year.

    1. Re:Marketed for Asia? by raph · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Glad you like it. We don't do anything special, really. It's mostly just FreeType doing the rendering, and HarfBuzz doing the text layout. Hinting is turned off by default, though, as we find that looks a lot better once you get to 200dpi. A 2012 Nexus 7 is now considered a fairly low resolution device, even though its 216 dpi would be pretty amazing on a desktop.

      The new CFF renderer that's now open sourced and part of FreeType should make the rendering of CFF fonts a lot better.

      --

      LILO boot: linux init=/usr/bin/emacs

  20. Re:laser beam focus? sounds harmful... by itzly · · Score: 1

    Focusing through windows is already problematic, so the laser likely won't make it worse.

  21. This is why... by PeterMcAtomineyStrø · · Score: 2

    The reason you need that sort of resolution is to get the most out of Google Cardboard.

  22. Battery Runtime by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    More, more, more. The only thing i'm missing is battery runtime and no vendor gives a shit about it.

    Actually L or Lollipop includes Project Volta, which will add battery saving tools for developers and users alike. A "Battery Historian" gives more info on exactly what's draining energy, while a battery saver mode lets users squeeze up to an extra 90 minutes out of each charge.

    That is vampire modes that turn smartphones into to dumbphones to extend smartphone my several times. I have witnessed it with the samsung galaxy S5 and was very impressed. I own the current Nexus which I love, but comes with a battery life I don't. I L does not make a difference. I may change to a different vendor.

    1. Re:Battery Runtime by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      The HTC One (m8), released this year, also has a battery stretch feature.

      Overall, very happy with the HTC One (m8) other then I wish it was about 1/2" to 3/4" smaller. HTC did a good job with the UI and it's very snappy, makes my 18 month old Asus TF700T Transformer tablet feel slow (both are quad-core units).

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  23. Nobody tests RF ability anymore by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just once, I'd love to see some side by side comparisons of the end-to-end RF ability of these new phones. While voice calls, the kids tell me, are a thing of the past we are getting more and more dependent on data connections. And how you get data is via RF link. And yet I haven't even seen link quality mentioned in a single review for at least two generations of smart phones.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Nobody tests RF ability anymore by EmperorArthur · · Score: 2

      Just once, I'd love to see some side by side comparisons of the end-to-end RF ability of these new phones. While voice calls, the kids tell me, are a thing of the past we are getting more and more dependent on data connections. And how you get data is via RF link. And yet I haven't even seen link quality mentioned in a single review for at least two generations of smart phones.

      The truth is that there are few radio manufacturers. If you have Verizon in the US then it's almost certainly going to be a Qualcom radio. The exact same Qualcom radio that are in all the other phones of the same generation. Kind of hard to differentiate yourself if the carrier forces you to use the same thing everything else is using.

      That brings up another point. Radios are carrier and region dependent. Verizon and Sprint use CDMA, while just about everyone else in the world (except Japan) use GSM. Worse, the US and Europe use different frequencies. I think most newer radios can handle them all, but that certainly wasn't true in the past.

      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
    2. Re:Nobody tests RF ability anymore by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Testing RF capability fairly is actually really difficult. You can't just put two phones next to each other on a desk and expect a fair comparison, because even within that distance the RF field varies and you can't control which channel the cell tower allocates to each either. The cell tower and phones also negotiate the lowest possible power link and again you have no easy way of seeing if one managed to link at lower power (because it is more sensitive) than the other.

      There are ways of testing this stuff, using expensive equipment in purpose built rooms, but tech web sites don't have access to it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Nobody tests RF ability anymore by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      No one tests them because doing so is actually quite irrelevant for the end user. One way of gauging devices ability to receive is to unplug the antenna and inject signals. Then you get the receiver sensitivity of the device. You'll find in the mobile phone industry the sensitivity will be almost identical across the board. There are relatively few vendors of chipsets which all the devices use.

      Then you're left with the quality of the antenna. Unfortunately one antenna may not be better or worse than another. Small chip antennas like the ones in phones are notoriously non-uniform in receiving pattern. They typically have gain profiles with all sorts of weird shapes and sideloabs.

      What would this mean for the end user? Do you prefer a universally equal antenna with gain in all directions which never works at the edge of coverage? Or would you prefer a device which has some gain in a weird shape which will work providing you're literally not holding it wrong? I take a dig at Apple's comments but the reality is true in the RF world. My phone (not an Apple device) has quite a poor signal right now. Moving or turning it slightly can result in a 6-12dB difference in gain.

      What benefit is it to the end user to know the RF performance of a device is slightly higher than another if you can decimate your signal just by taking one step?

  24. Screen size by WrecklessSandwich · · Score: 1

    I don't care how many pixels you stuff in there, it doesn't matter if the monster 5.5" screen doesn't fit in my hand.

    1. Re:Screen size by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      That's odd, since a 7" tablet fits comfortably into my hand. Does your mommy know that you are posting personal information on the Internet?

    2. Re:Screen size by WrecklessSandwich · · Score: 1

      A tablet is not a phone. If you can hold that 7" tablet in one hand and navigate with the thumb of the same hand, you might be Andre the Giant. Do you fit that tablet in your pants pocket too?

  25. As someone who's profoundly nearsighted... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...I'm feeling a bit smug about this development. I can hold it six inches away from my nose, peer under my glasses, and have the equivalent FOV and resolution of a 28-inch desktop display, handheld.

    Of course, if I want to do anything with it, I have to use my fingers, which appear the size of fireplace logs...

    1. Re:As someone who's profoundly nearsighted... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      that would be 28 inch "ultrawide" display

    2. Re:As someone who's profoundly nearsighted... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      At that distance, your nose is closer than your fingers.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:As someone who's profoundly nearsighted... by PJ6 · · Score: 1

      ...I'm feeling a bit smug about this development. I can hold it six inches away from my nose, peer under my glasses, and have the equivalent FOV and resolution of a 28-inch desktop display, handheld.

      If you were profoundly nearsighted you'd know that 6" is not a near-sighted reading distance for smartphones - that's a common distance for normal vision.

      Maybe you meant to say 3".

    4. Re:As someone who's profoundly nearsighted... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      By the time you reach age 50, your idea of "normal vision" will change substantially.

  26. That is Length not width by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    I don't care how many pixels you stuff in there, it doesn't matter if the monster 5.5" screen doesn't fit in my hand.

    There is a joke involved in you not being able to handle anything more than 4" ;). The dimentions of the phone are 146.3 X 74.6 X 8.95mm so its about seven and a half cm wide that is really not that big even for a young teenager.

    1. Re:That is Length not width by WrecklessSandwich · · Score: 1

      What, are they not measuring screen sizes diagonally anymore?

    2. Re:That is Length not width by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      They are, but phones vary in width and length depending on hard buttons and bezel sizes even for the same display size.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  27. Re:640KB ought to be enough for anyone by jd2112 · · Score: 2

    It seems that for a long time (say, up to 90s or 00s) it was believed that Gates said that 640KB thing. Then people did some research and didn't find any solid evidence of him saying that. So for some years people were reminded that "Gates never actually said that". But during the recent 5 years or so, talks about it being true after all have been coming back. I personally haven't followed the research much to know what's the current opinion. Hmm.

    At the time he is alleged to have made that statement, most versions of the then-dominant desktop OS, CP/M, were limited to a maximum of 64 KB. Weather or not he actually made that statement, at the time it would have been true.

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  28. Re:laser beam focus? sounds harmful... by pla · · Score: 1

    More importantly, does taking a picture of an airplane with this phone commit a felony?

  29. Re:laser beam focus? sounds harmful... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wonder how well the laser works through glass or plastic windows, or other common transparent stuff you might want to take pictures through.

    Or underwater, 'cause, you know ... sharks.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  30. LG G2 better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    i consider the G3 a downgrade on the LG G2:

    * battery life significantly worse, due to all the extra pixels
    * less screen contrast - they've decreased the pixel size but the size of the channels between the pixels is the same, ergo less screen area is actual pixel.
    * extra display resolution meaningless (withe the G2 you already need a magnifying glass to see the pixels)

    plus the snapdragon 801 is a meaningless performance bump on the 800, although i guess the removable battery and SD slot is handy.

    i dont want bigger screens or higher resolution in next year's smartphones. 5" is about perfect, 1080p is about perfect.

    smaller case and better battery life would be nice though...

    1. Re:LG G2 better by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      You appear not to have bothered to read about the new battery results
      http://bgr.com/2014/06/09/lg-g...

      Screen contrast is down, indeed, though it went from the brightest smart phone to merely middle of the pack, which is a shame.
      http://www.gsmarena.com/lg_g3-...
      I'll admit I never really worry about black levels on a phone as long as they are dark-enough, though, since I never use it for critical cinematic viewing and suspect most of the population is with me on that. The loss of max brightness is, imho, the biggest downgrade, though the minimum brightness is lower, which is nice for night-time viewing.

      Can't argue about too many pixels, though as long as it doesn't kill the battery life I'm okay with it. It could be 8k if it didn't slow the phone down or deplete the battery - who cares?

      Hard to believe that a faster CPU and faster GPU is a "downgrade", but I guess if "faster" means "slower" to you...

      It is bigger, though less so than the increase in screen size would suggest. Size is a personal thing for a phone. At least with the G3 you can carry a spare battery (or two) if you need exceptional endurance and can't stand external batteries.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:LG G2 better by slacka · · Score: 1

      The problem with the BRG battery results is they rely on LG's "opimizations" which only work when you're doing things like browsing the web. When you need to push the device like playing 3D games, all bets are off. If the benchmarks showed the G3 in a looping in a N.O.V.A. 3 demo, I'd be impressed, but they don't,

      The real issue here is that even my G2 slows down in heavy fights in FPS games and doesn't have enough battery life. With the G3, they increased the number of pixels that must be rendered by nearly 2x. (2560×1440)÷(1920×1080). More pixel switching is a double whammy since the LCD takes more power and the GPU takes more power to push those extra pixels. So unless the G3's GPU is MORE than 2x as powerful and the memory bandwith is MORE than 2x the G2's then you're going to end up with a SLOWER phone. And even if LG has done it, I'd much rather see that extra GPU power used to make better looking games and have a phone with longer battery life.

      So who cares? I care, cauz it's a shitty engineering trade-off.

  31. Re:640KB ought to be enough for anyone by Servaas · · Score: 1

    It bugs me that people, while taking in consideration the intelligence Gates has would ever say something like that and mean 640KB would last forever.

  32. Re:640KB ought to be enough for anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The same Bill Gates who, as late as 1995, dismissed the internet as a fad? That Bill Gates?

  33. Arm Lasers! by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    Captain Blork, arm the lasers!

    (Hundreds of people end up in the emergency room blind after having their picture taken...)

    1. Re:Arm Lasers! by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      or one phone user winds up in jail after trying to take a picture of a plane on approach.

  34. how's the call quality? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    The Linked article doesn't even mention voice or call quality. (Or are these features so well 'nailed' by now, they're taken as a given?)

    However, the article might have, but I'm not clicking through more than 1 page of fucking advertisements. (yes, there is a 'print' view, but it's still bullshit to break things into multiple pages just for ad revenue.)

  35. Overkill? What overkill? by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1
  36. What evidence do you have of Gates intelligence? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    What evidence do you have that Bill Gates is intelligent? I'm serious. What evidence?

    His father is a lawyer. Bill Gates did what lawyers do. He was extremely hostile toward the opposition. Because most people were so ignorant about technology, Microsoft was able to dominate. In my opinion, the dominance of Microsoft was due to the hostility, not to the quality of Microsoft's products.

    Read the book, Idea Man: A Memoir by the Cofounder of Microsoft, by Paul Allen (PDF file). Paul Allen quit Microsoft because he did not want to be around Bill Gates' anger. For example, see this quote from page 157:

    "Whenever we locked horns, I'd have to raise my intensity and my blood pressure to meet Bill's, and it was taking a toll. Some people can vent their anger, take a breath, and let it go, but I wasn't one of them. My sinking morale sapped my enthusiasm for my work, which in turn could precipitate Bill's next attack."

  37. Re:iPhone made irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    God no! I don't what a phablet. I want a phone that fits easily and inconspicuously inside my pocket, and doesn't look like I'm trying to talk into a tablet when I'm on a call. I don't need to watch HD movies on my phone. I have good eyes and have no reason for text to be any larger than it is now. You know where you can consume larger media files (if you really have nothing better to do than to consume movies all day): a tablet, a laptop, or a f'n TV.

    Apple may give in to market pressure and start making larger phones. But if they don't continue to sell (what I, and many others) consider "normal" sized phones - I'll have to get a 5S and hope that baby lasts for years to come (considering how well my 4S is holding up, I think it'll last quite some time).

  38. Re:640KB ought to be enough for anyone by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

    Would this be the same Bill Gates whose 1990s book "The Road Ahead" talked about how important the internet would be?

    Good thing you posted AC though so noone has to see you stuffing your foot in your mouth.

  39. Something wrong? by cchcRL · · Score: 1

    I thought we hunger for upgrade, advancement? Guess no more.

    So Average screen, with a lower price tag, will increase sales?

  40. How about a higher-spec F3 instead? by SIGBUS · · Score: 1

    I've been running LG's F3 for a while, and there are things I love about it, and other things that I hate.

    The good: Incredible battery life (can get two days with moderate use and still have battery to spare), slim design that can easily be operated with one hand, reasonably fast CPU, bright IPS display, good RF performance, and LTE. Also, it has a replaceable battery and a MicroSD slot.

    The bad: That MicroSD slot is needed, because there's less than 1.3 GB of internal storage, and there's only 1 GB of RAM. Fortunately, Firefox allows you to move it to the SD card, otherwise I wouldn't be able to run it.

    Suggestion: take the F3, and add more RAM and internal flash. A quad-core CPU would be nice, but isn't really necessary.

    That being said, in spite of the overkill display, the G3 at least has brought back the replaceable battery and the MicroSD slot, which went missing on the G2.

    --
    Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
  41. Re:640KB ought to be enough for anyone by gargleblast · · Score: 2
    The very same. Do check the date on your copy of that book though. While the 1996 revised edition did somewhat embrace the internet, the 1995 first edition had this to say :

    The Internet, wrote Gates, is one of "the important precursors of the information highway," along with PCs, CD-ROMs, phone networks, and cable systems, but "none represents the actual information highway. ... today's Internet is not the information highway I imagine, although you can think of it as the beginning of the highway."

    Bill Gates: More Profit Than Prophet

  42. A koan for LG by devloop · · Score: 1

    When I am tired, I sleep.
    When I am hungry, I eat with a scalpel and a caliper.
    Your cup is overful, You insensitive clod!

  43. Re:laser beam focus? sounds harmful... by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

    Yup, Taking a picture near an airport will now get you in jail...

    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  44. Re:FYI: 538 ppi = "retina display" at 6.4 inches by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

    You know there are things called glasses, contact lenses and Lasik?

    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  45. Re:640KB ought to be enough for anyone by TyFoN · · Score: 2

    And it was true.
    The internet in the early 90s was _slow_.
    I didn't get cable with 10 mbit until 1996ish, and even that was slow!

  46. Pictures of planes... by Rick+in+China · · Score: 1

    Encourage people around you to snap photos with planes or helicopters in sight, call the feds and have them arrested, and CASH IN!!! LG has just been uncovered as another player in the prison industrial complex /conspiracytheoried.

  47. Re:iPhone made irrelevant by krenaud · · Score: 1

    The iPhone has other drawbacks as lack of customization, lack of screen size choices, worse camera than the best competitors no waterproof alternative etc, but when it comes to actual app performance the iPhone 5s still beats all Android offerings giving a 100% lag-free experience. Lower resolution and a more efficient OS without single-thread bottlenecks in the internal UI code gives the iPhone a faster and smoother user experience which also can be measured. The iPhone 5s still holds the top place in web browsing benchmarks even though it is one year old and has a CPU which is behind the competition.

  48. Who cares? by short · · Score: 1

    Where is QWERTY?

  49. Is this useful for your smartphone? by Daniel+Hoffmann · · Score: 1

    I don't know if this useful for your smartphone, but the virtual reality headset makers will be very happy.

  50. Re:What evidence do you have of Gates intelligence by Alioth · · Score: 1

    No, Microsoft's domination is down to pure luck.

    If Compaq hadn't cloned the PC BIOS, or the IBM PC been a flop, Microsoft would have been just a page in history now along with Lotus, Ashton-Tate and various other software houses that got borged by IBM and other large companies. With no IBM PC, MS-DOS would never have sold much, and would never have been the "Microsoft tax" that bankrolled the first versions Windows and Microsoft Office. Even Intel might be a secondary player today, it may have been Zilog who became Chipzilla as they became the preferred supplier for CP/M machines and their 16 bit (and later 32 bit) follow ons, with companies like NEC or SGS or possibly Mostek being where AMD is now as they were Zilog second sources. And Digital Research (CP/M vendor) would be the big bad monopolist instead of Microsoft.

  51. Projection of desktop reso, from a smart phone? by bbsalem · · Score: 1

    The ability to do desktop resolutions from a smart phone makes sense to me if the ultimate goal is to transform the device into a Dell and HP killer by doing desktop functions from a mobile form factor. How can this be done? The high-res display could be projected onto a desk or wall with a bright laser, and either a USB or Bluetooth mounse and keyboard used or the laser could project a virtual keyboard and pointing device. The computer power of a smart phone rivals low-end desktops so a suitable dock could replace all the functionality of the desktop computer when the mobile device is brought to it. They are trying to kill the desktop, to eat its market share from the low end and if they get the desktop display right, they just might succeed.

    There are other less ambitious ways to do the same. Just implement a good USB hub and plug the mobile device into that with its legacy display, mouse, keyboard and NAS. No more desktop computer needed.