Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Nexus 5x and 6P

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 568 posts

Re: Google Nexus 5x and 6P

#141

Post by jinushaun »

lars_francke wrote: post #129

I understand that I'm not the majority but I do not understand the big deal about cameras on smartphones. Yes, I take a few pics on the phone per year but that's it. Looking around with friends and family I see the same. Again: I understand that there are lots of people that really do take lots of pictures and videos but I can't help but think that lots of regular smartphone users are not as concerned about the camer…

Even when I carry a DSLR, I probably shoot about 4:1 on my iPhone versus my DSLR.

I used to argue the same, but this is no longer true. The cameras are really good now. Smartphone cameras have beaten point-and-shoot. They won't ever beat DSLR, but most people don't need a DSLR.

The future of the camera is the phone.

Re: Google Nexus 5x and 6P

#142

Post by buffoon »

fenaer wrote: post #60

The US prices are reasonable, but the UK prices are just horrendous. £500 for the 6P brings it out of the range of "I'm due an upgrade anyway" into luxury territory. I think I'll stick with my Nexus 5.

£160 gets you a nice handset these days in the UK sim free. I couldn't put down £500; too painful.

Re: Google Nexus 5x and 6P

#144

Post by fudgy73 »

tedunangst wrote: post #92

> 518 pixels per inch To the moon! Considering it's a six inch phone, how close to my face am I going to be holding this thing? I wonder what's coming next. 240Hz refresh rates?

The Xperia Z5 Premium announced a few weeks back has a 3840x2160 display which gives it a whopping 806 PPI [0]!

[0] http://www.sonymobile.com/global-en/products/phones/xperia-z...

Re: Google Nexus 5x and 6P

#145

Post by Navarr »

zanny wrote: post #112
cpncrunch wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internal memory is much faster than SD cards, and potentially more reliable. I think Google and Samsung have decided to ditch sd cards to prevent the user having a shitty experience. Also, Google is offering 128GB, which is pretty decent. And their pricing is much less than Samsung's for 64gb vs 32gb.

Then amend the parent and instead say "I feel ripped off paying $150 premium for a 128GB model when I could buy a desktop 512GB 850 Evo for that much". And I guarantee you Samsungs SSD options are faster than their phone flash, because they go for performance way more on desktop parts.

Aren't you paying for the size the storage has been compressed down to at these prices?

Itty bitty little tiny chips? Your desktop 512GB 850 EVO isn't going to fit into the space a smartphone has for storage.

Re: Google Nexus 5x and 6P

#146

Post by ac29 »

gohrt wrote: post #83
cpncrunch wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internal memory is much faster than SD cards, and potentially more reliable. I think Google and Samsung have decided to ditch sd cards to prevent the user having a shitty experience. Also, Google is offering 128GB, which is pretty decent. And their pricing is much less than Samsung's for 64gb vs 32gb.

How fast is internal storage? When has an SD card failed before every other part of the phone , including USB port and screen?

It can be pretty fast. Apple's new iPhone gets storage speeds in line with a low end SSD [1].

[1] http://anandtech.com/show/9662/iphone-6s-and-iphone-6s-plus-...

Re: Google Nexus 5x and 6P

#147

Post by oblio »

Google, please, please, just let me see the stupid page even if I'm not in the US. Just put a huge, red warning sign saying that the product is not available in my country.

Re: Google Nexus 5x and 6P

#148

Post by Someone1234 »

com2kid wrote: post #8
rjbrock wrote: post #2

16gb and 32gb? Why is storage always so low?

Compared to couple of GBs Android phones came with just 3 or so years ago, 32GB is a lot. For anything except Video content (or the need for several months of offline music) 32GB is plenty.

This thing claims it shoots 4K video. That means at 32 GB you can shoot 30 minutes of uncompressed video or around an 60 minutes of compressed video (depending on a lot of factors, including compression ratio, format, etc).

The thing will likely overheat or run out of battery before 60 minutes of 4K video, but still the point stands, something that is featuring 4K video but then limits you to only 32 GB of storage is kind of contradictory.

I feel like this device is saying: "We support 4K video* (*but don't actually try to use it)."

PS - My point about overheat/battery is based on previous phones which claimed they supported 4K video. If you tried to use it the camera would switch off after a few minutes due to overheating, and the battery consumption would go through the roof.

Re: Google Nexus 5x and 6P

#149

Post by drewrv »

tcdent wrote: post #130

Pretty insightful to compare this to Apple's recent release where they've introduced a brand-new input method, in addition to the usual spec-bump. Meanwhile, Google is still building phones that are trying to keep up with what are essentially PC hardware specs (memory, clock speed, etc). I'm amazed they think that protrusion for the camera is cool, too. There are obviously two very different mentalities inside these…

I switched to an iPhone recently and can't wait to switch back. Already preordered the new nexus.

PC hardware specs are important, my biggest complaint about the iPhone is how little RAM it has. My nexus 5 could support doing simple things like running an email app, web browser, and maps app simultaneously. My iPhone is constantly reloading stuff when I attempt this.

Re: Google Nexus 5x and 6P

#150

Post by eertami »

tdkl wrote: post #131
tedunangst wrote: post #92

> 518 pixels per inch To the moon! Considering it's a six inch phone, how close to my face am I going to be holding this thing? I wonder what's coming next. 240Hz refresh rates?

> I wonder what's coming next. 240Hz refresh rates? Don't give Samsung new ideas for spec boasting.

I'd be more than fine with investments into high refresh rate screens, a true 240Hz desktop monitor wouldn't be spec boasting it would be the dream.
Post reply on HN