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

Jelly Star – The Smallest Android 13 Smartphone

unihertz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 276 posts

Re: Jelly Star – The Smallest Android 13 Smartphone

#241

Post by t0bia_s »

cookiengineer wrote: post #228
t0bia_s wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4) Is not bigger than 72mm W. What you ended up with?

Honestly, some Sony XZ and Xiaomi Redmi devices were kinda nice in the past because even when they had a sealed battery they were still replaceable without super expensive heat plates. Ethically I'd probably recommend a Fairphone 2/3/3+ in used condition, though they are somewhat clumsy. Ironically it's somewhat more private because the fingerprinting sensor never works in all of these models :D In theory the Pixel 3…

Samsung Galaxy S line fits as well.

Re: Jelly Star – The Smallest Android 13 Smartphone

#242

Post by josephcsible »

kjellsbells wrote: post #235
josephcsible wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you're going to worry that a custom ROM might be compromised, shouldn't you also be worried that you know that the stock ROM contains unfixed critical security vulnerabilities? Wouldn't any reasonable argument to forbid the former also forbid the latter?

There are cases every day where an employee of a company can demonstrate that A is at least as good as B, but trying to get permission to do B is impossible. There's simply no universe where an employee at a typical F500 company is going to be able to convince the IT team that they should permit custom code on phones even if the logic of the argument is sound. Even if they found the person, persuaded them, got them t…

> There's simply no universe where an employee at a typical F500 company is going to be able to convince the IT team that they should permit custom code on phones even if the logic of the argument is sound.

That's my point: I know that's how it is today, but the reasons for it being that way are illogical.

Re: Jelly Star – The Smallest Android 13 Smartphone

#243

Post by josephcsible »

keyringlight wrote: post #226
josephcsible wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you're going to worry that a custom ROM might be compromised, shouldn't you also be worried that you know that the stock ROM contains unfixed critical security vulnerabilities? Wouldn't any reasonable argument to forbid the former also forbid the latter?

I'd say when something like a bank is involved, they need something more substantial to point at for their insurance arrangements if/when something goes wrong. "Our app allowed a $5000 transfer on the user's stock Samsung" is easier to grasp the state of the system they're playing in than a user modified one. Also knowing what security risks are in play with N year old OS lets them decide if they want to allow the us…

> I'd say when something like a bank is involved, they need something more substantial to point at for their insurance arrangements if/when something goes wrong. "Our app allowed a $5000 transfer on the user's stock Samsung" is easier to grasp the state of the system they're playing in than a user modified one. Also knowing what security risks are in play with N year old OS lets them decide if they want to allow the user to proceed or work around. Some applications are more aggressive in what version OS they need

I've seen plenty of apps need a minimum major version of Android, but never any that have needed a minimum security patch level.

Re: Jelly Star – The Smallest Android 13 Smartphone

#244

Post by rchaud »

wkat4242 wrote: post #6

Part of the problem with this brand is that this "Android 13 Smartphone" will probably stay that forever. Updates are very very minimal. I have their first jelly and it didn't even get the upgrade they promised. Other than that, it's not so bad. Swype-typing makes a small keyboard still useful. But the updates really are the achilles heel here.

My Galaxy Fold is on Android 12, it's been bugging me to upgrade to Android 13, which I ignore. These days Android OS feature advances tend to be minimal.

Re: Jelly Star – The Smallest Android 13 Smartphone

#245

Post by brnt »

janandonly wrote: post #216
brnt wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20 years ago I was very resistant to buying any mobile phone because I was waiting for an in ear piece that would do the whole job, and let you dial by voice. It seemed just around to corner, and logical, because who would want to carry a phone everywhere?

If you combine an Apple Watch with Apple EarPods you get exactly that

But you still need an iPhone somewhere right? Can't just use the watch on its own?

I did think about this, but battery life is pretty bad if you actually use the watch throughout the day and I now need a whole train of devices instead of just an earpiece.

Re: Jelly Star – The Smallest Android 13 Smartphone

#246

Post by samatman »

normie3000 wrote: post #145
samatman wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll be holding on to this Mini 13 until Apple makes another model in that form factor, or until it's unusably obsolete. So far, it does what I need, and does it fast enough.

How's the battery life?

Adequate for my purposes. The whole point of owning it is that I have a very light-duty relationship with the phone: music/podcast, maps, some food delivery and ride share, and some messaging when I'm not at my laptop. I don't read stuff on it, let alone browse the web or doomscroll social media.

So when I'm at home it can easily last a couple days. If I'm traveling by air, or other rare occasions where my phone gets heavy use, I have a slap-pack battery to stretch it out. I'm more likely to resort to that if I'm traveling and I forget to charge it: it's obviously not as much battery as a bigger phone, but for 99% of days, it's more than fine.

It serves my purposes, and fits in more pockets than the big bricks do. I wish Apple would learn to count as low as several million, and go back to accommodating the smolphone niche, but their current policy seems to be that if a product doesn't sell enough units to supply one to every resident of a mid-sized European country, it isn't worth manufacturing. Pity.

Re: Jelly Star – The Smallest Android 13 Smartphone

#247

Post by exe34 »

cookiengineer wrote: post #230
exe34 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> isn't compatible with LineageOS I gave up on rugged phones for this, I got a pixel 5 and a rhinoshield, which has survived over a year so far, although I don't just throw it around like I could with the bv7000. that phone was the smartphone equivalent of an old Nokia 3310.

Same here, same here. All Blackview and CAT models were insanely bad when it comes to their software, and I couldn't get them to run any self-built ROM and neither any GSI image so I gave up on my dream of an open rugged phone, too :( In the BV case I even tried using the MediaTek root-mode exploit, but didn't have success booting any compiled kernel because lots of drivers are messy in their firmware.

i miss the bv, if you drop it, you worry about your foot and the pavement.

Re: Jelly Star – The Smallest Android 13 Smartphone

#248

Post by happymellon »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #210
happymellon wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speech to text doesn't require AI. I've had it on my Google keyboard for a very long time. Its always been accurate too.

In my case, it always been garbage. Speech to text doesn't require AI when you do it like Microsoft did it in the aughts; ever since "new, better", cloud-side techniques came along, the technology got worse, and the only meaningful qualitative improvement I've seen in two decades is in the last two years, with new-generation models which may or may not be backed by LLMs now.

Dragon dictate was crappy.

Google keyboard was pretty precise.

Over time its become worse, but all of Googles products have become worse. That doesn't mean it we couldnt do it, we just can't rely of Google to provide it.

Re: Jelly Star – The Smallest Android 13 Smartphone

#250

Post by paulmd »

mitchell209 wrote: post #62
flawn wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You got unlucky with your devices (having unfortunate hardware compatibility) or the ROM maintainers (being inexperienced or just not good). LOS is really great and rarely has any issues coming from the pure source of the OS.

I can’t even imagine what brands they’re buying where support is dropped that quickly.

Motorola dropped support for the moto g within 6 months of me buying it. I got either one or zero android version updates iirc.

“A year and a half of OS updates” rapidly becomes 6 months of OS updates if you don’t buy on launch day, wait for prices to drop a little bit and inventory to normalize, etc.

Post reply on HN