161–170 of 290 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems you are searching for Librem 5 (my daily driver). It runs PureOS (a Debian derivative) and turns into a desktop when connected to a screen and keyboard.
It doesn't run my banks' apps so it can't be more than a secondary device for playing around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Phones are used to consume content. Bigger screens make consuming content better. Therefore smaller screens do not sell well. The sales back up my statements. Yes I romanticize about an iPhone 17 mini pro but in the end I like being able to watch some downloaded content on a plane without having to bring an iPad from time to time and I'm not going to do that on a tiny screen.
I feel like the sales data would back you up, if it wasn’t for the fact that the 12 and 13 mini were larger than the iPhone 6 and 6S which for many people was too large. It’s a bit like selling increasingly carbonated water and then selling slightly less carbonated water and pretending that it was still water that you were selling- and using the data (of nobody buying it) to tell everyone that “nobody likes the still…
I don't get why people make statements like this.
6: 2.64 (W) x 5.44 (H) x .27 (D)
6s: 2.64 (W) x 5.44 (H) x .28 (D)
13 mini: 2.53 (W) x 5.14 (H) x 0.30 (D)
The only dimension in which the mini was larger than the 6 or 6s was in depth, and that was just barely. It was smaller otherwise.
It did have a larger display, but it fit it into a smaller device.
----
All iPhones before the iPhone 6 were smaller than the 12 and 13 minis. The 1st gen SE was smaller. Everything from 6 on, including the 2nd and 3rd gen SEs, have been larger, though barely for the SEs. The downside to the SEs compared to the minis was that they have smaller displays than the minis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like the sales data would back you up, if it wasn’t for the fact that the 12 and 13 mini were larger than the iPhone 6 and 6S which for many people was too large. It’s a bit like selling increasingly carbonated water and then selling slightly less carbonated water and pretending that it was still water that you were selling- and using the data (of nobody buying it) to tell everyone that “nobody likes the still…
> if it wasn’t for the fact that the 12 and 13 mini were larger than the iPhone 6 and 6S which for many people was too large. I don't get why people make statements like this. 6: 2.64 (W) x 5.44 (H) x .27 (D) 6s: 2.64 (W) x 5.44 (H) x .28 (D) 13 mini: 2.53 (W) x 5.14 (H) x 0.30 (D) The only dimension in which the mini was larger than the 6 or 6s was in depth, and that was just barely. It was smaller otherwise. It did…
Betrays the point anyway: the ideal size was the 5 and it was nowhere near that, even by your official numbers (which I would guess are excluding the rounded edges maybe? - regardless, not the point)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if it wasn’t for the fact that the 12 and 13 mini were larger than the iPhone 6 and 6S which for many people was too large. I don't get why people make statements like this. 6: 2.64 (W) x 5.44 (H) x .27 (D) 6s: 2.64 (W) x 5.44 (H) x .28 (D) 13 mini: 2.53 (W) x 5.14 (H) x 0.30 (D) The only dimension in which the mini was larger than the 6 or 6s was in depth, and that was just barely. It was smaller otherwise. It did…
I literally laid them on top of each other and the 6 was marginally larger. Betrays the point anyway: the ideal size was the 5 and it was nowhere near that, even by your official numbers (which I would guess are excluding the rounded edges maybe? - regardless, not the point)
So you did that and still wrote that the minis were larger? Or you did that after I pointed out that the minis were smaller?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My ancient Canon Rebel camera, I think a T3i, takes stunningly detailed photos against even my iPhone 15 Pro. But, I never have my Canon and it's too bulky to carry around everyday. I do carry my iPhone everywhere I go. And so, the capabilities of my iPhone camera are more important. I imagine this is the same for the overwhelming majority of people.
Having said that you also have the midway option with large sensor compact cameras. A ricoh GR III/IV with an APS-C sensor is heavier than a smartphone but not overly so and more compact as it actually fit a pocket. A Canon G9X is even lighter with a 1" sensor.
I tried a Sony RX100 (1" sensor) when they first came out, optimistic about the possibility of using it for 'general purpose' photography. After all, it's small enough.
The problem was, it's a second device to carry around and keep charged. Then once you capture the image, it's largely stuck on the device until you find a way to offload your images. I briefly experimented with cables that would let me do things like transfer images from the RX100 to my (Android at the time) mobile phone, for archiving and sending to family and friends. That turned the whole thing into the sort of science fair project that I didn't have time for as the parent of a very young child. (Although in fairness, I can't think of a single time in my life when I'd have had the patience, kids or not.)
This is why, for all the arguments you can make against them as cameras, I've come to be very thankful for the amount of effort that Apple and others have made to get appealing images out of devices I always carry around anyway. I can take a set of pictures, edit them, have them automatically archived to cloud storage, and send them to whoever I want.. all with a single device I was carrying around anyway.
This leaves open the fact that the 'real' camera workflow is still an option when there's the need for higher image quality and the time (or money to hire a photographer) to take advantage of what a DSLR or the like can do.
(When I compare what I can do with my iPhone to what my parents had available to them (a 110 format camera and 35mm Nikons), I like the tradeoffs a lot better. the image quality available now is definitely better than the 110. Some of those 35mm exposures are probably better quality than what I can get out of an iPhone, but they're all stuck in albums and slides, and nobody ever looks at them. )
Apple shipping their in-house network silicon (5G cellular, WiFi, Bluetooth, etc) to their wider product line is certainly a long time coming. I would assume this means Apple laptops with integrated cellular modems are on the near horizon.
I've been wondering why they haven't had this before even is using 3rd party modems. Seems like an obvious play unless they feel like that would cannibalize their tablet market??
Perhaps people who buy a MacBook are likely to have an iPhone in their pocket that will function as a hotspot and iPads are much more often used by people who are otherwise outside of Apple's ecosystem?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use Visible which uses Verizon’s network, at a steep discount. Never had any issues.
What happens when the sub-carrier gets deprioritized so that the main carrier's customers get priority? How frequently does your bandwidth suffer? You say never, but is that really the case or you've just become used to it? I know several people on these places like Boost or Metro or whatever, and their streaming experiences definitely take hits
There is a list of all the prioritization tiers (aka QCI, or premium data) on all the three main US carriers here:
https://old.reddit.com/r/NoContract/comments/1mxogtx/data_pr...
Apple shipping their in-house network silicon (5G cellular, WiFi, Bluetooth, etc) to their wider product line is certainly a long time coming. I would assume this means Apple laptops with integrated cellular modems are on the near horizon.
I've been wondering why they haven't had this before even is using 3rd party modems. Seems like an obvious play unless they feel like that would cannibalize their tablet market??
Because Qualcomm charges a percentage of sale price for use of their modem.
https://9to5mac.com/2025/02/23/gurman-apple-modems-integrati...
I am looking to upgrade my phone, and at the same time leave my carrier (Verizon). The price I pay for 2 people compared to the price I see out there for other carriers is just too large. Any suggestions for me while I shop around for "tier 2" carriers? I am primarily concerned with price, and then network coverage second (I am OK with sometimes being throttled, but would prefer to avoid large gaps in any coverage).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure there is. Shoot in Raw format. Get a file representing a matrix of the sensor readout for each rgb pixel. Your post processing software of choice handles interpolation to the method of your choice.
> the sensor readout for each rgb pixel Camera pixels are only one color at a time: GGRR BBGG (quad-Bayer; Fujifilm uses a weirder one called X-Trans. And some of them will be missing because they're damaged or are focus pixels.) And then you still have to do white balance and tone mapping, because your eyes do that and the camera sensor doesn't.