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

First field report of iPhone X

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 277 posts

Re: First field report of iPhone X

#251

Post by valuearb »

criddell wrote: post #229
craftyguy wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, but not because of the mindless sheep angle you seem to want it to be How do you explain the iphone x? > Lots of people are comfortable using iPhones and like how they work. They don't want to to switch to something else ok? That's not at all what I was talking about. > The End. Oh please, get over yourself.

What is there to explain about the iPhone X? It's the best new phone from Apple. If you keep a phone for two years and use it daily, then the hardware costs around $2 / day so it's affordable. If that's the ecosystem you are in and want a new phone, then that's a pretty reasonable choice.

Less than $2 a day with resale value. And service costs more than $2 a day. So if you are given a free phone, you are still spending more than half as much as an iPhone X. If you get a "cheap" $500 phone you are spending at least 80% as much as an iPhone X.

Re: First field report of iPhone X

#252

Post by madeofpalk »

wtetzner wrote: post #184
madeofpalk wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. TouchID can't be used if your fingers are wet or wrinkly. Since I found out about FaceID I've noticed a bunch of scenarios where TouchID falls short and I have to drastically change how I'm using the phone or what I'm doing to accomodate unlocking using a specific finger. > Because one can use TouchID for Apple Pay much quicker and more reliably in a crowded/rushed situation such as paying for public transport.…

> Sure. TouchID can't be used if your fingers are wet or wrinkly. Sounds like a reason to improve the tech behind TouchID.

TouchID doesn’t work with gloves.

Re: First field report of iPhone X

#253

Post by dpark »

themihai wrote: post #230
dpark wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation? I cannot imagine that my years old Nexus 6 has a more recent display than the new iPhone X.

Check the specs. It's AMOLED vs OLED. Also check the ppi, brightness etc. It was so embarrassing to watch the keynote when Phil was explaining that it took longer to upgrade to OLED because they had to perfect the technology. I guess that's why they haven't upgrade Mac Pro line for so long either...same with Mac Mini and 4K on Apple TV..they are perfecting it... The truth is that the old LCD was cheaper and now after…

Your citation is that Apple’s marketing group thinks OLED is a better term than AMOLED?

PPI is not a fixed number determined by generation and isn’t relevant. Brightness is an interesting point but my Nexus 6 was AMOLED (oh my) and It’s very possible, even likely, that Samsung’s latest flagship phones use newer display tech than the iPhone X. It is exceedingly unlikely that the iPhone X is using first generation tech.

Re: First field report of iPhone X

#254

Post by hbosch »

jpalomaki wrote: post #192
jack6e wrote: post #131

Even though the overall tone of this review was upbeat and positive, it seemed that the baseline conclusion was: "hopefully we find a use for the minor iterative improvements that will make this more than just the next release in a series of underwhelming releases." For one of the first, selectively-chosen reviews of what is supposed to be a ground-breaking product, the article essentially told us 1) the pictures loo…

There's no room for revolution in smartphone space anymore. The market is too competitive and everybody is tracking it too closely. Revolution can take place in overlooked product categories (think tablets when iPad was introduced - I'd claim that was true revolution since it took significant time for the competitors to really catch up with Apple). On one hand this is pretty sad. There's no wow factor, no truly excit…

The yearly upgrade cycle has truly made cynics of us all. Those of us who will go from a iPhone 6 to an iPhone X will be amazed. Those of us who take every iteration every year will be annoyed.

Re: First field report of iPhone X

#255

Post by jochung »

dntrkv wrote: post #155
jack6e wrote: post #131

Even though the overall tone of this review was upbeat and positive, it seemed that the baseline conclusion was: "hopefully we find a use for the minor iterative improvements that will make this more than just the next release in a series of underwhelming releases." For one of the first, selectively-chosen reviews of what is supposed to be a ground-breaking product, the article essentially told us 1) the pictures loo…

What was so revolutionary about the original iPhone? I don't think anyone could point at any single feature throughout the whole smartphone revolution and claim it was "revolutionary." It was always a combination of features and design decisions that made the phones so easy and pleasant to use. There were many phones before the iPhone that were way more capable, yet nobody talked about them. Siri, TouchID, FaceID, ca…

It's as simple as it is overlooked: by building off of OSX, Apple delivered a phone that could actually work with all the files and protocols that people used on desktop. PDF, HTML, MP3/AAC, MP4/H264, ... Not to mention frameworks and APIs that were battle hardened.

It took competitors years to catch up, everyone's forgotten how much of a joke Android was until v4, and how Black Berry only caught up just as they were about to die. Things like low latency audio, large image support, GL, crypto, battery life, ...

Re: First field report of iPhone X

#256

Post by iainmerrick »

zimpenfish wrote: post #117
iainmerrick wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Reliable and fast" is exactly why TouchID was so great when they introduced it. They aren't just nice-to-have features, they're the bare minimum requirements for this kind of thing -- a feature that you use constantly, and which gates your access to all other features.

> "Reliable and fast" is exactly why TouchID was so great when they introduced it. Although it wasn't particularly either when it was first introduced.

I think you misremember. Here’s Daring Fireball on the iPhone 5S (https://daringfireball.net/2013/09/the_iphone_5s_and_5c):

“Once you’ve added a fingerprint, subsequent scans of that finger are nearly instantaneous. Touch ID is way faster than “fast enough”. I’d call it “I can’t believe it works this quickly” fast. It’s also very accurate — only a handful of times over the past week have I had to try a second time, and each of those times, I hadn’t really squared up my finger with the sensor.”

I know many people regard DF as overly biased, but as I recall, the general reception for Touch ID was very positive. Let me know if you find a review that says otherwise.

Re: First field report of iPhone X

#257

Post by dingoonline »

jochung wrote: post #255
dntrkv wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was so revolutionary about the original iPhone? I don't think anyone could point at any single feature throughout the whole smartphone revolution and claim it was "revolutionary." It was always a combination of features and design decisions that made the phones so easy and pleasant to use. There were many phones before the iPhone that were way more capable, yet nobody talked about them. Siri, TouchID, FaceID, ca…

It's as simple as it is overlooked: by building off of OSX, Apple delivered a phone that could actually work with all the files and protocols that people used on desktop. PDF, HTML, MP3/AAC, MP4/H264, ... Not to mention frameworks and APIs that were battle hardened. It took competitors years to catch up, everyone's forgotten how much of a joke Android was until v4, and how Black Berry only caught up just as they were…

Very very notable comment.

One of the first remarks from Blackberry's CEO when he first saw an iPhone was; “They’ve put a Mac in this thing,”. https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/excerpt-...

Re: First field report of iPhone X

#258

Post by photojosh »

ggg9990 wrote: post #163
dntrkv wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was so revolutionary about the original iPhone? I don't think anyone could point at any single feature throughout the whole smartphone revolution and claim it was "revolutionary." It was always a combination of features and design decisions that made the phones so easy and pleasant to use. There were many phones before the iPhone that were way more capable, yet nobody talked about them. Siri, TouchID, FaceID, ca…

I've always upgraded my iPhone only for the camera and I've never regretted that. There are so many photos I have from a long time ago that I wish were higher quality, so I'm always willing to spend $ to make sure that today's photos are as good as they can be. 90% of the time I don't have my proper camera with me, so the phone is what it is. Tangentially, after seeing some NFL replay highlights this weekend, I reall…

Yep, I'm more excited about the 56mm-e camera getting a wider aperture and image stabilisation than I am FaceID in the immediate sense.

But I am interested in what app developers will be able to do with a miniature 3D scanner!

Re: First field report of iPhone X

#260

Post by iainmerrick »

mgce wrote: post #126
iainmerrick wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're an Apple user, you don't really get a choice over whether to adopt this new stuff. You'll either buy it now, or you'll have to buy it anyway the next time you upgrade because there won't be any other options. Or you switch to Android. Often this is fine because the new stuff is unambiguously great. Sometimes it's miserable. That's life as an Apple customer.

I bought an iPhone 6 on eBay about a month ago after another one broke. It's good as new, works perfectly, was super-easy to purchase. So don't worry: the Apple upgrade cycle really isn't that bad.

Do you think you'll still be using a 6 in two years' time, though?
Post reply on HN